Jayveer Singh Yadav vs State Of U.P.

(Per:Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.)

This jail appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Auraiya arising out of Case Crime No. 314 of 2010 registered as Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2011 (State Vs. Jayveer Singh Yadav), whereby the learned trial Judge had convicted appellant Jayveer Singh Yadav, under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo additional sentence of one year.

The prosecution story in nutshell is as under:-On 21.12.2010, complainant Rakesh Babu had given a written complaint to the Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya to the effect that his cousin brother Jayveer Singh S/o Bade Lal, was resentful about the mutual partition and repeatedly asked for money from his mother. The mother refused to give the money. At around 8.30 in the morning, when mother of the complainant was winnowing millet in front of the shed, accused Jayveer Singh came to her and asked for money. When his mother refused to give the money, Jayveer Singh hit his mother on the neck and temple with the axe, due to which his mother, Smt. Ramdevi, aged around 53 years, died on the spot. This incident was witnessed by him and his brothers Umesh Singh, Omveer Singh and Vijay Singh, sons of Manrakhan Singh, residents of Diariapur, Police Station Vidhuna and Rajendra S/o Sipahilal, resident of Anantapur. Everyone tried to catch accused Jayveer Singh, but Jayveer Singh ran towards the fields with an axe and the mother's dead body was lying at the spot.

On the basis of the written report of the complainant, on 21.12.2010 at around 9.30 am, a case under Section 302 I.P.C. bearing Case Crime No. 314 of 2010 was registered at Police Station Bidhuna, District Auraiya.

During investigation of the present case, an inquest of the dead body was done, post-mortem was conducted and statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The accused was arrested. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet against accused Jayveer Singh and cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed under Section 302 I.P.C.

During the course of the trial as many as 7 prosecution witnesses were examined. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused-appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the incriminating circumstances and claimed trial.

By the impugned judgment, the learned trial judge convicted the accused-appellant. Hence, this appeal.

We have heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri C. B. D. Dubey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the trial Court record as well as the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court had convicted the appellant herein for an offence under Section 302 IPC, whereas the undisputed evidence on record of the prosecution shows that the appellant should have been convicted only for the offence under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. He submitted that the incident occurred spontaneously without any prior planning or intention to kill, as it was triggered on the spot by a sudden argument over a refusal of money. It was further submitted that the entire physical assault lasted only thirty seconds in the heat of passion. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant did not act with cruelty or take undue advantage, as he fled the moment witnesses rushed toward the scene. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant without going into further merits of the case requested that the conviction should be modified to Section 304 Part-I IPC, and given that the appellant has already spent more than thirteen years in jail, his sentence should be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submission submitting that perusal of the FIR itself reveals that accused-appellant was resentful about the mutual partition and repeatedly asked for money from the deceased prior to the incident. He has further submitted that there was no sudden or grave provocation from the side of the deceased and neither was it a case of a sudden fight. He has argued that this is a case of a per-meditated assault where the appellant came to the deceased and asked for money. When she (deceased) refused to give the money, accused-appellant hit on her neck and temple with the axe and, due to which she died on the spot. He further submitted that the testimonies of eye witnesses PW1 and PW2 had also been substantiated by the testimony of PW5 Dr. Sudhir Kumar, who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased.

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to first analyze the testimony of witnesses.

PW-1 Rakesh Babu is the complainant (son of the deceased) who had deposed before the trial Court that on 21.12.2010 at around 8.30 am, his mother was winnowing millet in front of the orchard. He along with his brothers, Umesh Singh and Omveer Singh, Rajendra Singh from the village, and Vijay Singh from the neighboring village, who had come to buy his buffalo, were all standing near the buffaloes in the orchard. At that very moment, the accused in the court, Jayveer Singh, his cousin, went to his mother to ask for money. He was holding an axe. When his mother refused to give him money, Jayveer struck her several times, striking her in the neck and temple. His mother was standing at the time. As soon as Jayveer struck her with the axe, she fell. We tried to apprehend Jayveer, but he ran into the fields with the axe. He could not be caught. He further stated that accused Jayveer was always demanding money from his mother and held a grudge over the division of property. On that day due to not giving the money, Jayveer killed his mother Mrs. Ramdevi with an axe. He further stated that thereafter, he went to the Vidhuna police station for registering the F.I.R. The police had registered the F.I.R. against the accused. He further stated that police had recorded his statement and later on arrested the accused Jayveer on the same day. Accused had handed over the axe with which he had killed his mother.

PW-2 Om Veer is the son of deceased, who had deposed that on 21.12.2010, at around 8:30 a.m., when his mother, Smt. Ramdevi, was winnowing millet in front of the shed, his cousin, Jayveer Singh, came with an axe and demanded money from his mother. When his mother refused, he struck her in the neck and temple with the axe, resulting in her death. His brothers, Rakesh Babu, Umesh Singh, Vijay Singh, residents of Dahariyapur, and Rajesh Singh, witnessed the incident. He further deposed that Vijay Singh had come to his village to buy his buffalo. They were standing nearby under a neem tree. He further deposed that they all had tried to apprehend Jayveer Singh, but he was unable to be caught. He further stated that accused Jayveer held a grudge against his mother regarding the property dispute and repeatedly demanded money from her. When his mother refused to give him the money, he killed her with an axe. He further deposed that police had also recorded his statement regarding the aforesaid incident.

PW-3 Ram Veer is the resident of neighbouring village of deceased who deposed that on 21.12.2010, at around 5.30 pm, he along with his relative Jagveer Singh was standing at the Bhagat Singh intersection. The Inspector of Vidhuna Police Station, accompanied by several sub-inspectors and constables, had apprehended the accused, Jayveer.

PW-4 Ram Murti is a constable who had registered the F.I.R. against the accused. He had prepared the paper No. 4Ka/1 and proved the F.I.R. which is exhibited as Ex. Ka3.

PW-5 Dr. Sudhir Kumar is the pathologist who had conducted the post-mortem and found that the cause of death was due to shock and bleeding as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He found many lacerated wounds on the face, ear, neck, back of the head and ankle joint. He has proved the paper no. 11Ka/1 i.e. postmortem report which is exhibited as Ex. K-5.

PW-6 Ram Kripal Singh is the retired Deputy Superintendent of Police who stated that on 21.12.2010, he was posted as Incharge Inspector at Police Station Vidhuna. He had investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan i.e. Paper No. 13 Ka/2 and proved the same which is exhibited as Ex. Ka6. He had also prepared the recovery memo of blood stained & plain earth i.e. paper no. 8K/2 and proved the same as Ex. Ka7. He had also prepared the inquest report i.e. Paper Nos. 9Ka/1 to 9Ka/2 and proved the same as Ex. Ka8.

PW-7 Siyaram is the retired Sub-Inspector who had identified his signature on the paper No. 8Ka/1 i.e. the recovery memo of blood stained Axe exhibited as Ex. Ka2. He had stated that Axe Ex. 1, and other belongings of the deceased exhibited as Ext. 2,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra. He has proved the F.S.L. report No. 18 Ka which is exhibited as Ex. Ka15.

At the threshold of our determination, without disturbing the established findings regarding the occurrence, the legal question before this Court is whether the uncontroverted facts establish premeditated murder under Section 302 I.P.C. or attract Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C., constituting culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 I.P.C.

The established factual matrix reveals that the appellant Jayveer Singh Yadav and the deceased Smt. Ramdevi were close family relations residing in Village Anantapur, where an ongoing dispute existed regarding the mutual partition of agricultural land and farm machinery alongside repeated monetary demands made by the appellant. On 21.12.2010 at approximately 8:30 a.m., while the deceased was winnowing millet near a thatched shed in the village orchard where cattle were tied, the complainant PW-1, PW-2, and other villagers were standing nearby under a tree approximately 30 steps away. The appellant approached his aunt and demanded money, and upon her refusal, an instantaneous altercation ensued in which the appellant struck her on the neck and head using an axe present at the scene. As deposed by PW-1 Rakesh Babu, the entire physical assault lasted merely half a minute, and as the witnesses rushed from 30 steps away to intervene, the appellant immediately fled toward the eastern fields.

To attract Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C., four statutory conditions must cumulatively exist, namely that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight or quarrel, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner. The degree of offence should be decided by considering the total background of the incident, manner in which the incident took place and the conduct of the accused immediately after the incident. These dimensions of factors are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

So far as, use of sharp weapon is concerned for more than one times by the appellant, it is pertinent to note that where the assault is committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without premeditation, even if the weapon used is a sharp or heavy agricultural tool, the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC cannot be routinely denied.

Addressing this, the Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217, laid down:

A Division Bench of this High Court in State of U.P. v. Dev Bahadur @ Matru Yadav, 2026 SCC OnLine All 4473, observed that in rural agrarian society, equipments like axes, gandasa or lathis are common household tools found in agricultural fields and cattle sheds (chhappars). The mere presence or use of an axe does not automatically convert every fatal assault into a pre-planned murder under Section 302 IPC. The crucial test is whether the accused carried out a cold-blooded ambush or whether the incident transpired spontaneously upon a sudden verbal refusal or quarrel.

When the prosecution evidence itself shows that the deceased was attacked during a sudden altercation at an open farm shed in full view of witnesses, without prior stealth or calculated preparation, the offence properly falls under Section 304 Part-I, IPC.

Furthermore, in Budhi Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2012) 13 SCC 663, the Supreme Court held that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to 'culpable homicide' as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 of the Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first part of Section 304 of the Penal Code.

In Jhaptu Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh (2014) 12 SCC 410, after consideration of the facts as proven, the Supreme Court observed as below:

Again, in Sankath Prasad v. State of U.P., (2020) 12 SCC 564, occasioned by the fact that the incident was caused at the spur of the moment and it was a fallout of an alteration, the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was converted to that under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. In that, it was observed as below:

Applying these authoritative rulings to the present case, we find that there is a total absence of evidence suggesting premeditation, ambush, or a pre-calculated design to commit murder, as the incident occurred in broad daylight in an open farm shed with eyewitnesses present 30 steps away. The refusal of money acted as the immediate trigger that caused a sudden loss of self-control in the heat of passion, while the weapon used was an ordinary agricultural equipment routinely available at cattle sheds. Furthermore, the assault was restricted burst of rage lasting 30 seconds, and the appellant fled as soon as witnesses approached, demonstrating that he did not act with cruelty or unusual barbarity. Consequently, while the appellant possessed the knowledge and intention that striking the deceased with an axe was likely to cause fatal bodily injury, the lack of premeditation removes his act from the purview of Section 300 I.P.C. and brings it directly under Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. The learned trial Court erred in law by treating the incident as a pre-planned murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., and therefore, the conviction deserves to be altered to Section 304 Part-I I.P.C.

Regarding the quantum of sentence, the record indicates that the incident occurred on 21.12.2010 and the appellant was convicted on 17.02.2014, having remained incarcerated for more than 14 years. In our considered view, the period of detention already undergone by the appellant serves the ends of justice for the converted offence under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C. However, the amount of fine remains intact.

Accordingly, the Jail Appeal is partly allowed, the conviction and sentence of appellant Jayveer Singh Yadav under Section 302 I.P.C. passed in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2011 is set aside and modified to a conviction under Section 304 Part-I, I.P.C., and his sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the trial court record be transmitted to the learned Trial Court and the Superintendent of the concerned Jail for prompt compliance.