SUDAM PRABHAKAR ACHATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 897 : 2025 INSC 378

                       Sudam Prabhakar Achat
                                   v.
                       The State of Maharashtra
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 2024)
                                21 March 2025
           [B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as to whether the conviction u/s.302 IPC could be
       converted into s.304 Part I or Part II IPC.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304 Part I, 300 exception IV, 302 –
       Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Alteration
       of conviction to a lesser offence – Testimony of related
       witnesses – Reliability – Quarrel on account of previous
       enimity between the accused persons and the deceased who
       were brothers – Upon confrontation, the co-accused and his
       son-appellant became aggressive, and the co-accused armed
       with axe and the appellant armed with stick assaulted the
       deceased and his son-complainant, resulting in injuries to
       them – Deceased succumbed to his injuries the same night
       and the complainant succumbed to his injuries, a month later –
       Order of conviction and sentence of the accused u/ss.302/34
       and 324/34 by the courts below – Correctness:
       Held: No reason to interfere with the finding that the death of the
       deceased was homicidal, and it was the appellant along with the
       co-accused who caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his
       death – All the witnesses are related to the deceased – Merely
       because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such
       are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard
       their testimony – Testimony of such witnesses to be scrutinized
       with greater caution and circumspection – Possibility of a quarrel
       taking place on account of previous enmity between the accused
       persons and the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of
       the moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting
       the deceased cannot be ruled out – Weapons used are stick and

* Author
898                                                               [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       the blunt side of the axe, easily available in any agricultural field –
       Thus, cannot be said that there was any premeditation – Appellant
       is alleged to have used the stick whereas the co-accused is said
       to have used the blunt side of the axe – If their intention was to
       kill the deceased, no reason as to why the co-accused would
       not have used the sharp side of the axe – Nature of injury and
       the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would also not show
       that the appellant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel
       manner – Thus, the case would not fall under the ambit of s.302
       and the appellant is entitled to benefit of exception IV of s.300 –
       Conviction u/s.302 converted to Part I of s.304 – Appellant having
       already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months, sentenced
       to the period already undergone. [Paras 7-15]

                                   List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                                List of Keywords
       Testimony of witnesses; Previous enimity; Post-Mortem Report;
       Evidence of the Medical Officer; Homicidal; Related witnesses;
       Interested witnesses; Testimony; Premeditation; Blunt side of
       the axe; Undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner; Benefit
       of exception IV of s.300 IPC; Conviction u/s.302 converted to
       Part I of s.304 IPC.

                               Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       641 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2021 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay in CRLA No. 88 of 2013

                            Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar, Dr. Ravindra Chingale,
       Ms. Manreet Kaur.
       Advs. for the Respondent:
       Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha
       Pande, Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Amlaan Kumar, Jatin Dhamija,
       Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        899

          Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. The State of Maharashtra


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     B.R. Gavai, J.

1.   The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated
     10th August 2021, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
     Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2013, whereby
     the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant (Accused
     No.2) thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 5th December
     2012 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Malegaon, District
     Nashik (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case
     No.76 of 2009 thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 read
     with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred
     to as “IPC”) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
     for life along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof rigorous
     imprisonment for two months. The appellant was also convicted
     under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced
     to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of
     Rs.500/-, in default whereof rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2.   Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
     2.1 The case of the prosecution is that Bapu Motiram Achat
         (complainant), Motiram Deoram Achat (deceased), Sudam
         Prabhakar Achat (appellant herein) and Prabhat Deoram Achat
         (co-accused) are all residents of Sitane, Taluka Malegaon,
         District Nashik. The deceased and the co-accused were brothers.
         Their agricultural fields were situated adjacent to each other
         with a common boundary and a common well. Further, the
         complainant is the son of the deceased and the appellant is
         the son of the co-accused.
     2.2 On 15th July 2009, when the complainant had gone to his field,
         the appellant hurled abuses at the complainant with respect to
         the use of common boundary (Bundh) to operate the electric
         pump on the well. The complainant returned home and narrated
         the incident to his parents. Thereafter, the complainant and his
         parents went to the field at 12:00 Noon and asked the appellant
         an explanation as to why he was obstructing the complainant.
900                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            Upon such confrontation, the appellant and the co-accused
            became aggressive. The co-accused armed with an axe and
            the appellant armed with a stick assaulted the deceased and
            the complainant.
       2.3 The complainant and the deceased both sustained injuries.
           The people working in the nearby field namely, Chhagan
           Krishna Achat (PW-1), Krishna Deoram Achat and mother of
           the complainant i.e. Sojabai (PW-7), separated and took the
           complainant and the deceased to the Government Hospital,
           Malegaon. The report of the complainant was recorded at
           4:15 PM and Crime Case No.171 of 2009 was registered under
           Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
           The deceased was thereafter shifted to Government Hospital,
           Dhule. However, he succumbed to injuries on the same night
           and Section 302 of the IPC was added.
       2.4 The Investigating Officer, Mahindra Ahire (for short, “IO”)
           prepared a spot panchnama (Exhibit 26). The appellant was
           arrested on the next day i.e., 16th July 2009. Further, inquest
           panchnama (Exhibit 20) was drawn, clothes of the deceased
           were seized under panchnama (Exhibit 21), post-mortem was
           carried out and the report (Exhibit 15) was prepared. The
           co-accused in police custody, gave a memorandum statement
           (Exhibit 11) which resulted in the recovery of the axe and stick
           (Exhibit 12). At the request of the IO, evidence of eye-witnesses
           were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
           Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as “CrPC”) by the
           Judicial Magistrate.
       2.5 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by
           the IO in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, FC, Malegaon and
           was registered as R.C.C. No.578 of 2009. Since the case was
           exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to
           the Sessions Court. The trial court framed charges against the
           appellant and co-accused. The charges were read over and
           explained to both of them to which they pleaded not guilty and
           claimed to be tried. Their defence was that of total denial and
           false implication in the present crime and that the deceased
           slipped while he was in the field because of the tin-sheet of
           the tin-shed and sustained injuries.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                       901

          Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. The State of Maharashtra


     2.6 To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution
         examined eight witnesses and exhibited nine documents.
         The accused persons did not examine any of the prosecution
         witnesses or any witness in support of their defence.
     2.7 At the end of trial, the trial court convicted the appellant and
         the co-accused as aforesaid.
     2.8 Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant and the co-accused
         preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court challenging
         the judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by
         the trial court. The High Court vide the impugned final judgment
         and order dismissed the appeal.
     2.9 Being aggrieved thereby, a special leave petition was filed, in
         which notice was issued limited to the question as to whether
         the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could be converted
         into Section 304 Part I or Part II of the IPC. Subsequently, by
         an order dated 2nd February 2024, leave was granted.
3.   We have heard Ms. Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar, learned counsel
     appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Rukmini Bobde, learned
     counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State.
4.   Ms. Matwankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
     submits that the prosecution relies only on the eye witnesses who
     are the relatives of the deceased. It is submitted that the relatives
     of the deceased being interested witnesses, the conviction only on
     the basis of their testimony would not be sustainable in law. She
     therefore submitted that the conviction is not sustainable and the
     appeal deserves to be allowed.
5.   Ms. Matwankar, in the alternative, submits that, from the evidence
     on record, it is clear that the offence would not come under the
     ambit of Section 302 of IPC and at the most, it would come under
     Part I or II of Section 304 of IPC.
6.   Per contra, Ms. Bobde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
     State submits that both the courts below concurrently, on the basis of
     the perusal of the evidence, found the accused guilty of the offence
     charged with. She submits that, in view of the concurrent findings
     of fact, no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
7.   From the perusal of the Post-Mortem Report (Exhibit-15) and the
     evidence of the Medical Officer (PW-4), we do not find any reason to
902                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       interfere with the finding that the death of the deceased is homicidal.
       We also do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the
       trial court that it is the appellant along with the co-accused who have
       caused injuries to the deceased resulting in his death.
8.     Having come to the conclusion that the appellant and the
       co-accused are liable for the death of the deceased, we will have to
       now examine whether the prosecution has proved its case that the
       offence committed by the appellant would come under the ambit of
       Section 302 IPC or it can be altered into a lesser offence.
9.     No doubt that all the witnesses are related to the deceased. As a
       matter of fact, the deceased and the complainant on the one hand
       and the accused persons on the other hand are also closely related
       to each other inasmuch they are first cousins. It is however a settled
       position of law that merely because the witnesses are relatives of the
       deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot
       be a ground to discard their testimony. The only requirement is that
       the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater
       caution and circumspection.
10. A perusal of the evidence of Chhagan Krishna Achat (PW-1) who
    is the nephew of the deceased would reveal that the fields of the
    accused persons and the deceased are adjoining each other. His
    testimony would further reveal that when he returned to the field
    on the date of the incident, he saw that there was a quarrel going
    on between the accused persons and the deceased. His testimony
    would further reveal that the co-accused Prabhakar was assaulting
    the deceased with the blunt side of the axe and the appellant was
    armed with a stick and he assaulted the deceased with the said
    stick. It is to be noted that Motiram died when he was taken to the
    Government Hospital, Dhule. The other injured person Bapu Motiram
    succumbed to injury about a month after the date of incident.
11. A perusal of evidence of PW-1 would reveal that the deceased was
    standing on the bundh which was only 15-20 feet on the northern side
    of the house of the co-accused. To the same effect is the evidence
    of the other eye witnesses.
12. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses itself, it is clear that
    the place of incident is near the house of accused persons. The
    possibility of a quarrel taking place on account of previous enmity
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        903

             Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. The State of Maharashtra


     between the accused persons and the deceased; and in a sudden
     fight in the heat of the moment, the appellant along with the co-
     accused assaulting the deceased cannot be ruled out. It can further
     be seen that the weapons used are a stick and the blunt side of
     the axe. These tools are easily available in any agricultural field. It
     therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation.
13. It is further to be noted that the appellant is alleged to have used
    the stick whereas the co-accused is said to have used the blunt side
    of the axe. If their intention was to kill the deceased, there was no
    reason as to why the co-accused would not have used the sharp side
    of the axe. The nature of injury and the evidence of the prosecution
    witnesses would also not show that the appellant had taken undue
    advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
14. In that view of the matter, we find that the present case would not fall
    under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the appellant would be
    entitled to benefit of Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC. It is further
    to be noted that the appellant has already undergone the sentence
    of 6 years 10 months.
15. We are therefore inclined to partly allow the appeal. In the result,
    we pass the following order:
     (i)     The appeal is partly allowed;
     (ii)    The conviction under Section 302 IPC is converted to Part I of
             Section 304 IPC;
     (iii) The appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone; and
     (iv) The appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not required
          in any other case.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain