Patna High Court
MOSAHEB YADAVversusSTATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The conviction of Mosaheb Yadav under Section 304 IPC is upheld as the prosecution proved culpable homicide beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The appellant Mosaheb Yadav was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of Panna Devi, arising from a dispute over drainage blockage. The prosecution relied on two eyewitnesses, both relatives of the parties, and a post‑mortem report showing a spade‑induced head injury, while the defence argued that the witnesses were interested and that key officials were not examined. The High Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, the medical evidence, and the legal standards for culpable homicide versus murder, referring to precedents on Sections 299, 300 and 304 IPC. It held that the prosecution had proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction under Section 304 was proper. The Court also found the trial court’s sentence of crediting time already served to be disproportionate and imposed a fresh rigorous imprisonment of ten years. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction affirmed.
Issues considered
- The adequacy and credibility of prosecution witnesses in establishing culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC
- Whether the failure to examine the informant, investigating officer and medical officer vitiates the conviction
- Interpretation of Sections 299, 300 and 304 IPC to distinguish murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- The propriety of the sentence awarded by the trial court in view of the principle of proportionality
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 294, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 299, 300, 304
Subjects
- Section 304 IPC
- culpable homicide
- murder
- witness credibility
- sentencing
- proportionality
- post mortem
- criminal appeal
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.279 of 2010
======================================================
Mosaheb Yadav, S/o- Ram Narain Yadav, Resident of village-Sone-Barsa,
P.S.-Siswan, District-Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 24-03-2026
Heard Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, learned Amicus
Curiae and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and conviction dated 23.12.2009 and
24.12.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 207/2009 arising out of
Siswan P.S. Case No. 09/2008 by the 4 th Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Siwan, whereby the learned trial court
convicted the appellants under Section 304 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to the period already undergone in jail by
the appellant during the trial and further sentenced with the fine
of rupees one lakh out of which rupees seventy five thousand
will be paid to the informant, who is the husband of the
deceased, and in default of payment of the fine, to further
undergo R.I. for five years.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
2/19
3. The prosecution case, in brief is that the informant
got his fardbeyan recorded on 14.01.2008 at about 2:30 A.M. at
Sadar Hospital, Siwan, stating that on the same day at about
8:00 A.M., his patidars, namely, Moseheb Yadav, Ram Narayan
Yadav, Tetari Devi and Ramajee Yadav, were blocking the
drainage of water from his house, and when his wife, Panna
Devi, objected, the accused persons started abusing and
attempted to assault her; upon this, the informant rushed to
intervene but was also threatened, whereafter he concealed
himself and witnessed Moseheb Yadav giving a spade blow on
the head of Panna Devi, causing her to fall on the ground, and
thereafter the other accused persons assaulted her with lathi and
danda, rendering her unconscious; on alarm, villagers assembled
and the accused fled away, and the injured was taken to P.H.C.
Siswan and then referred to Sadar Hospital, Siwan, but she
succumbed to her injuries on the way, the occurrence having
taken place due to a dispute regarding drainage of house water.
4. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
under Sections 304 of the IPC, and upon trial in Sessions Trial
No. 207/2009 arising out of Siswan P.S. Case No. 09/2008, the
learned trial court convicted the appellants by judgment dated
23.12.2009 and order of sentence dated 24.12.2009.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
3/19
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
5. Learned Amicus curiae submitted that the judgment
and order passed by the learned trial Court are bad in law, being
based on mere surmises and conjectures. It was contended that
the learned trial Court failed to consider that two of the
prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and are
admittedly on inimical terms with the appellant, and that their
testimonies are materially contradictory to each other. It was
further submitted that the informant of the case, who claimed to
be an eyewitness to the occurrence and is also the husband of
the deceased, was not examined in support of the prosecution
case, which by itself demolishes the entire prosecution story.
Learned counsel also contended that the prosecution failed to
examine the Investigating Officer as well as the Medical Officer
who conducted the post-mortem examination, and that the post-
mortem report does not support the manner in which the alleged
assault is said to have been inflicted by the appellant. He
submitted that there was no scope of applying Section 304 I.P.C.
having not fulfilled the conditions stipulated under Section 300
I.P.C. In support of these submissions, reliance has been placed
on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nand Lal & Ors. vs. State
of Chattisgarh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 470. On these
grounds, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
4/19
the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and
therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence are liable to be set aside.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
6. Per Contra, Learned APP appearing for the State,
while opposing the appeal, submitted that Exhibit-I clearly
proves that the deceased, Panna Devi, sustained injuries caused
by a spade blow, which ultimately resulted in her death. It was
further submitted that both the witnesses, P.W.-1 (Sitaram
Yadav) and P.W.-2 (Shiojee Yadav), are independent witnesses
who are equally related to both the parties, and therefore, their
testimonies are highly reliable. Learned APP further contended
that non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the
Medical Officer does not in any manner affect the evidentiary
value of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, as, except for the informant, neither
the Investigating Officer nor the Medical Officer are
eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It was also submitted that the
learned trial Court, upon due consideration of the entire
evidence on record and the exhibits adduced on behalf of the
parties during the course of trial, has rightly convicted the
appellant for the said offences, which are serious in nature and
constitute cognizable offences.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
5/19
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
7. Heard the parties.
8. The appellant would take the plea that the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses is sketchy and lacks credibility,
particularly in the background of the admitted position that there
exists prior enmity between the parties on account of drainage
passing from the house of the informant. The prosecution’s
version of events is highly improbable. Alternatively, would
submitted that no case under Section 304 of the I.P.C. is made
out and, therefore, the order of conviction is bad in law. He
would further urged that the Investigating Officer and the doctor
have not been examined, thereby causing prejudice to the
defence. He would also pointed out that the appellant is about
20 years of age on the date his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. is recorded, i.e., on 23.12.2009.
9. I have perused the lower court records and the
impugned judgment and also taken note of the arguments
canvassed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
10. The learned trial court, on the basis of materials as
collected during the course of investigation, passed the
Judgment and the order of Conviction dated 23.12.2009 and
24.12.2009 respectively holding the appellant convict under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
6/19
Section 304 of the IPC.
11. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether two witnesses, namely:
P.W.-1- Sita Ram Yadav,
P.W.-2 – Sheojee Yadav
12. The prosecution has also relied upon following
documents exhibited during the course of trial:-
(i) (Exhibit-1)- Post Mortem report
13. From the perusal of the records the statements of
the prosecution witnesses are as under:
(i) P.W.1:(Sita Ram yadav) This witness has deposed
in his examination-in-chief that on the day of Makar Sankranti
in the year 2008 at about 8:00 A.M., upon hearing noise, he
went to the house of Satya Narayan Yadav, where he saw
accused Mosaheb Yadav giving a spade blow on the head of
Panna Devi. He further stated that accused Ram Narayan Yadav
and Ramajee Yadav assaulted her with lathi, while Tetari Devi
assaulted her with a danda, as a result of which she fell down on
the ground. He also deposed that the injured was taken to P.H.C.
Siswan and thereafter referred to Sadar Hospital, Siwan, but she
succumbed to her injuries on the way. According to him, the
occurrence took place due to a dispute regarding blockage of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
7/19
drainage. In cross-examination, he admitted that Satya Narayan
and Ram Narayan are his real brothers. however, nothing
material could be elicited by the defence to discredit his
testimony.
(ii) P.W.2-(Sheoji Yadav): This witness has supported
the prosecution case and deposed that on 14.01.2008 at about
8:00 A.M., on hearing noise, he went to the house of Satya
Narayan Yadav and saw that a dispute was going on regarding
the flow of drain water. He stated that accused Ram Narayan,
Mosaheb, Tetari and Ramajee were blocking the drainage, while
Satya Narayan and his wife were trying to clear it. In the
meantime, Mosaheb Yadav gave a spade blow on the head of
Panna Devi, causing bleeding injuries. He further deposed that
the injured was taken to P.H.C. Siswan and was immediately
referred to Sadar Hospital, Siwan, but she died on the way. In
cross-examination, this witness admitted that he is related to
both parties and stated that some of the accused persons used to
reside at Calcutta. However, his testimony regarding the
occurrence remained consistent.
14. On the basis of materials surfaced during the trial,
the appellants/accused was examined under Section 313 of the
Cr.PC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
8/19
surfaced against him, which he denied and shows his complete
innocence.
15. Now the question arises, whether, there is any
evidence on record to differ from the learned trial Court on the
basis of factual aspect where the proper provision has been
applied to convict the appellant under Section 304 of the I.P.C.
16. The Apex Court in the case of Ruli Ram & Anr. vs.
State of Haryana reported in (2002) 7 SCC 691 has dealt with
Sections 299 and 300 of the I.P.C. which inter alia as under:
"9. The academic distinction between “murder”
and “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” has
always vexed the courts. The confusion is caused, if courts
losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used
by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be
drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach
to the interpretation and application of these provisions
seems to be to keep in focus the key words used in the
various clauses of Sections 299 and 300. The following
comparative table will be helpful in appreciating the points
of distinction between the two offences:
Section 299 Section 300
A person commits culpable homicide Subject to certain exceptions
if the act by which the death is culpable homicide is murder if the
caused is done— act by which the death is caused is
done—
Intention
(a) with the intention of causing (1) with the intention of causing
death; or death; or
(b) with the intention of causing such (2) with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause bodily injury as the offender knows
death; or to be likely to cause the death of the
person to whom the harm is caused;
or
(3) with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted
is sufficient in the ordinary course of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
9/19
nature to cause death; or
Knowledge
(c) with the knowledge that the act is (4) with the knowledge that the act is
likely to cause death. so imminently dangerous that it must
in all probability cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury as is mentioned above.
10. Clause (b) of Section 299 corresponds
with clauses (2) and (3) of Section 300. The
distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite
under clause (2) is the knowledge possessed by the
offender regarding the particular victim being in
such a peculiar condition or state of health that the
internal harm caused to him is likely to be fatal,
notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not
in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause
death of a person in normal health or condition. It is
noteworthy that the “intention to cause death” is
not an essential requirement of clause (2). Only the
intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with
the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such
injury causing the death of the particular victim, is
sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this
clause. This aspect of clause (2) is borne out by
Illustration (b) appended to Section 300.
11. Clause (b) of Section 299 does not
postulate any such knowledge on the part of the
offender. Instances of cases falling under clause (2)
of Section 300 can be where the assailant causes
death by a fist-blow intentionally given knowing that
the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver, or
enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is
likely to cause death of that particular person as a
result of the rupture of the liver, or spleen or the
failure of the heart, as the case may be. If the
assailant had no such knowledge about the disease
or special frailty of the victim, nor an intention to
cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence
will not be murder, even if the injury which caused
the death, was intentionally given. In clause (3) of
Section 300, instead of the words “likely to cause
death” occurring in the corresponding clause (b) of
Section 299, the words “sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature” have been used. Obviously, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
10/19
distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to
cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. The
distinction is fine but real and if overlooked, may
result in miscarriage of justice. The difference
between clause (b) of Section 299 and clause (3) of
Section 300 is one of degree of probability of death
resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it
more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death
which determines whether a culpable homicide is of
the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word
“likely” in clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the
sense of probable as distinguished from a mere
possibility. The words “bodily injury … sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death” mean
that death will be the “most probable” result of the
injury, having regard to the ordinary course of
nature.
12. For cases to fall within clause (3), it is
not necessary that the offender intended to cause
death, so long as the death ensues from the
intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Rajwant v. State of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1874 is an
apt illustration of this point.
13. In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR
1958 SC 465 Vivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court,
explained the meaning and scope of clause (3). It
was observed that the prosecution must prove the
following facts before it can bring a case under
Section 300 “thirdly”. First, it must establish quite
objectively, that a bodily injury is present; secondly,
the nature of the injury must be proved. These are
purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be
proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular injury, that is to say, that it was not
accidental or unintentional or that some other kind
of injury was intended. Once these three elements
are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds
further, and fourthly, it must be proved that the
injury of the type just described made up of the three
elements set out above was sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the
enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has
nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
14. The ingredients of clause “thirdly” of
Section 300 IPC were brought out by the illustrious
Judge in his terse language as follows :
“12. To put it shortly, the prosecution
must prove the following facts before it can bring a
case under Section 300 ‘thirdly’;
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
11/19
First, it must establish, quite objectively,
that a bodily injury is present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be
proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was
an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury,
that is to say, that it was not accidental or
unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was
intended.
Once these three elements are proved to
be present, the enquiry proceeds further and,
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury
of the type just described made up of the three
elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature. This part of the
enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has
nothing to do with the intention of the offender.”
17. In the present case, learned trial Court has given its
findings as under:
"The case of the prosecution is that the
occurrence took place when the accused along with
other family members was blocking drainage of
house water and victim and others members were
forbidding them from such act. As stated earlier Ext.
I which is he Post Mortem report of Panna Devi
which shows that she has received one incised
wound on the back of the head in middle parksme 4
x 1 x Bonê deep. Ext. I further shows that the cause I
hemorrhage of death due to sharp and hemorrhage
which was caused due to antimortem Injury
sustained by the deceased. Ext. I further shows that
the Post Mortem was conducted on 14-1-2008 at
about 4. 15 P.M. and times since death Post Mortem
was within 6 Hours, which clearly established the
prosecution story that the death was caused by the
injuries received through spade blow.
P.W.I has deposed in examination in Chief
that on date of Makar Shankranti of 2008 at about
8.00 AM. he was at his door and having heard the
noise he went at the door of the Satya Narayan
Yadav where he saw that Mosaheb Yadav gave a
spade blow to Panna Devi. He further deposed that
Ram Narayan and Ramajee assaulted her by Lathi,
and Tetari Devi assaulter her with Danda. After
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
12/19
sustaining injury Panna Devi fell down on ground.
Panna Devi was brought to Siswan Hospital, from
where she was referred to Sadar Hospital, Siwan but
in the midway she died. This witness has further
deposed that the occurrence took place due to
blocking of the drainage. In cross examination this
witness has admitted that Satya Narayan and Ram
Narayan is his real brother, but defence failed to
show any contradictions in the testimony of this
witness due to which his testimony can be discarded.
P.W.2 Sheoji Yadav have supported the prosecution
story and deposed that on 14.01.2008 at about 8:30,
he went at the door of the Satya Narayan Yadav on
hearing noise where he saw that there was fighting
with respect to flow of the water from the drain.
Ram Narayan Mosahab, Teteri and Ramajee were
blocking the flow of water while Satya Narayan and
his wife was trying to open the drain In the
meantime Mosaheb gave a spade blow which
caused head injury to Panna Devi and bleeding
started. Panna Devi was shifted to the P.H.C.
Siswan, but immediately she was referred to Sadar
Hospital, Siwan and during proceeding to Siwan she
died in the midway. This witness is also whether
brother of the both parties and this witness has
further admitted that Ram Narayan and his family
use to reside at Calcutta and Mosaheb was studying
at Calcutta. This witness has further admitted that
Gandhi Rai son of the Satya Narayan (Informant)
was also living in Calcutta with Ram Neravan
accused party. This witness has denied that the Ram
Naravan and others were blocking the drain,
Gandhi had made a spade blow to the accused
party, but the Panna Devi came to rescue them due
to which Penna Devi sustained injury of the spade
blow of Gandhi. Defence council failed to show to
any material contradiction in the testimony of this
witness due to which it can be disbelieved.
On the basis of the evidence of the P.W.1
& 2 end Ext. I( Post Mortem report) it is well
established the deceased Panna Devi has sustained
injury caused by spade blow when she was
forbidding to accused persons from blocking the
drain of the informant and she died, in the midway
when she was being carried for her treatment at
Sader Hospital, Siwan.
Learned Counsel for the defence
submitted that there is no evidence against the
accused. Failure of its prosecution to examine the
informant Doctor and apparent that there is no
evidence et all. Learned Defence counsel further
submitted that the actually the injury sustained by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
13/19
the Panna Devi was caused by her son Gandhi Hot
by the accused, though the injury was caused due to
I for the defence is by chance. Learned Defence
counsel further submitted that the P.W. I and 2 both
are brother of the informant party, therefore they are
interested witnesses and their testimony can not be
relied on for proof of the commission of offence
against the accused.
As against the submission of the defence
counsel learned Addl. P.P. submitted that the Ext. I
proved the sustaining of injury by spade blow to the
victim Panna Devi which ultimately resulted in her
death. Learned Addl. P.P. further submitted that
both the witnesses namely P.W.I Sita Ram Yadav and
P.W. 2 Shiojee Yadav are independent witnesses and
they are equally related with both the parties.
Therefore their testominies are most reliable and
trustworthy. Learned Addl. P.P. further submitted
that none examination of the informant Doctor and
I.O. will make no effect on the worthiness of the
evidence of P.W. I and? and except the informant
I.O. and Doctor are not eve witnesses of the
occurrence. Learned Addl. P.. submitted that the
defence raised by the defence counsels worthless
and liable to be ignored. As submitted by the Addl.
P.P. I find that 1 and 2 are co-related with informant
party and co-accused, therefore their testimonies
are appeared to be most independents and truthfull
and they can not be discarded. So far as none
examination of the 1.0. & Doctor concerned. They
are not the eye witnesses of the occurrence.
Moreover since the Ext. I Post Mortem is exhibited
U/S 294 of the cr.p.c. on admission of the defence
counsel I think that lacuna of none examination of
the doctor is fullfilled, So es none examination of the
informant is concerned I think that it will also make
no effect on the utility of the evidence of the P.W. I
and P.W. 2. Rather if the informant examined he
must liable be treated as interested witness Bs again
the P.W. I and 2. Therefore, I find no merit in the
defence, read by the Defence counsel hence rejected.
Now the question arise whether the death of
Panna Devi was caused by any pre planning of this accused
along with other named accused persons over are the death
was caused merely as a matter of chance. On perusal of he
circumstances of this case as stated by prosecution that the
there was some dispute with respect to drainage and
accused party was blocking the drain of the informant party
and informant party was forbidding the accused persons
from blocking the drain. During which the injury was
sustained by the victim Fanes Devi by a blow of spade Rive
by the Mosaheb Yadav. In such circumstances in my view it
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
14/19
is apparent the there was no planning of accused party to
commit such kind of occurrence whether that was happen it
was purely caused as of meter of chance. Therefore, the
causing of death of the Panna Devi by Mosaheb Vadav vine
spade blow was not intentional, rather it was purely
chance. which is an offence of culpable homocide not
amounting to murder punishable under section 304 I.P.C.
Therefore on basis of discussion stated above I find and
hold that the prosecution fail to established the charge
under section 302 I.P.C. but the prosecution has prove
successfully e lessor offence under section 304 I.P.C.
Accordingly Under the circumstances stated
above I find not guilty under section 302 I.P.C. but I find
and hold guilty to the accused Mosaheb Yadav under
section 304 I.P.C. and for which he is convicted."
18. Based on the above principle as discussed by the
Apex Court while interpreting the provisions of Sections 299
and 300 of the I.P.C., now, I proceed to analyse on the basis of
the attending circumstances. From the FIR, it appears that the
sole eyewitness is the husband of the deceased, who is also the
informant, and he has narrated the entire incident as witnessed
by him. This witness can be said to be sterling witness and he
has not been examined. Now whether, on the basis of the
statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the case of the prosecution can be
disapproved in view of the fact that murder is admitted?
19. The Post-mortem report reveals that the deceased
was aged about 65 years. Injury was found on the occipital
region of the head, which traced two cutting of the occipital
bone middle part. Blood and clots in cranial cavity with
laceration of the brain matter. The alleged incidence had taken
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
15/19
place on 14.01.2008 and the post-mortem was conducted on the
same day after nearly six hours. Presence of injury shows that
there was no quarrel between the parties and the prosecution has
put forward the genesis of origin of the enmity. The appellant in
his self defence, has denied that the had assaulted the deceased.
20. I find that the prosecution has been able to
sufficiently prove on the basis of reasonable probability, the
case beyond reasonable doubt. The intention of the appellant to
commit murder is absolutely fortified by the conclusion drawn
by the learned trial Court but the learned trial Court on the point
of sentence, instead of imposing maximum sentence, has
erroneously passed order reducing the sentence to the period
undergone by the appellant in custody. In this regard, it is well
settled that the criminal law adheres in general to the principle
of proportionality in prescribing liability according to the
culpability of each kind of criminal conduct. It ordinarily allows
some significant discretion to the judge in arriving at a sentence
in each case, presumably to permit sentence that reflects, which
in the present case, don't reflect much suitable consideration of
the culpability.
21. In Sham Sunder vs Puran, (1990) 4 SCC 731,
where the Court reduced the sentence for the offence under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
16/19
section 304 part I into undergone, the supreme court opined that
the sentence needs to be enhanced being inadequate which is as
under:
"The court in fixing the punishment for any particular
crime should take into consideration the nature of
offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the
degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The
measure of punishment should be proportionate to the
gravity of offence." (emphasis supplied)
22. In State of MP vs Najab Khan reported in (2013)
9 SCC 509, the Court, while upholding conviction, reduced the
sentence of 3 years by already undergone which was only 15
days. The Apex Court restored the sentence awarded by the trial
court. Referring to its earlier the judgments passed in the case of
Jameel vs State of UP reported in (2010) 12 SCC 532 and
Guru Basavraj vs State of Karnatak reported in (2012) 8 SCC
734, observed as follows:-
"In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the
corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual
matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the
nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and
committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the
conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all
other attending circumstances are relevant facts which
would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate
that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would
do more harm to the justice dispensation system to
undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is
the duty of court to award proper sentence having regard to
the nature of offence and the manner in which it was
executed or committed. The courts must not only keep in
view the rights of victim of the crime but also the society at
large while considering the imposition of appropriate
punishment."
23. The Apex Court has laid emphasis on proportional
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
17/19
sentencing by affirming the doctrine of proportionality. In the
case of Shyam Narain vs State (NCT of delhi) reported in
(2013) 7 SCC 77, it was pointed out that sentencing for any
offence has a social goal. Sentence is to be imposed with regard
being had to the nature of the offence and the manner in which
the offence has been committed. The fundamental purpose of
imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the accused
must realize that the crime committed by him has not only
created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the
social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is that the society
may not suffer again by such crime. The principle of
proportionality between the crime committed and the penalty
imposed are to be kept in mind. The impact on the society as a
whole has to be seen.
24. In Ravada Sasikala vs. State of A.P. reported in
AIR 2017 SC 1166, the Apex Court has reiterated that in
operating the sentencing system, law should adopt corrective
machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. Facts and
given circumstances in each case, nature of crime, manner in
which it was planned and committed, motive for commission of
crime, conduct of accused, nature of weapons used and all other
attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
18/19
into area of consideration. Further, undue sympathy in
sentencing would do more harm to justice dispensations and
would undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It
is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having
regard to nature of offence and manner of its commission. The
supreme court further said that courts must not only keep in
view the right of victim of crime but also society at large. While
considering imposition of appropriate punishment, the impact of
crime on the society as a whole and rule of law needs to be
balanced.
25. I find that the learned trial Court has departured
from weighing the proportion between the crime and the
punishment by punishing for the serious crime with equal
severity, the sentence is interfered. Accordingly, the appellant is
hereby convicted under Section 304 of the I.P.C. and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years.
26. The period of detention already undergone by the
appellant during investigation and trial shall be set off against
the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him, in
accordance with law.
27. The appellant is directed to be taken into custody
forthwith.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2010 dt.24-03-2026
19/19
28. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
29. This Court appreciates Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh,
learned Amicus Curiae, who has endeavoured to put forth the
facts and the evidences meticulously. The Patna High Court,
Legal Services Committee is, hereby, directed to pay a sum of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh,
learned Amicus Curiae, as consolidated fee, for rendering his
valuable professional service for disposal of the present appeal.
30. Office is directed to send back the lower court
records along with a copy of the judgment to the learned District
Court forthwith.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE 17.03.2026
Uploading Date 25.03.2026
Transmission Date 25.03.2026
Checking your session…