Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   734      OF 2014 [CRLMP No.6247 of 2014 in SLP (Crl.) No.6775 of 2010-Jail  

Petition]

Saroj @ Suraj Panchal & Anr.     …     Appellant(s)  

versus

State of West Bengal          …    Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.  

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment  

of the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.A. no.207  

of 2002.   

3. The appellants herein are accused nos.1 and 3  

respectively  in  Sessions  Trial  Case  

no.XXX(April) of 2000 on the file of Fourth  

Additional Sessions Judge at Howrah and they  

were tried along with two other accused and  

all of them were convicted for offence under

Page 2

Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and each  

of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment  

for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and  

in  default  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  

for one year.  Aggrieved by the conviction and  

sentence accused nos.1 to 4 preferred appeal in  

Criminal Appeal no.207 of 2002 and the High  

Court  by  impugned  judgment  dated  12.5.2008  

dismissed  the  appeal  preferred  by  accused  

nos.1 and 3.  Challenging the same they have  

preferred the present appeal.

4. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :  

Accused no.1 Saroj @ Suraj Panchal is the elder  

brother of accused no.3 Anil Panchal.  Accused  

no.2  Tapan  Panchal  and  accused  no.4  Swapan  

Panchal are sons of accused no.1 Saroj @ Suraj  

Panchal.  PW1 Srikant Ray and PW9 Sameer Ray  

are brothers of deceased Sukumar Ray.  All of  

them  are  residents  of  Bangalpur  village  and  

their houses were nearby.  There was a love  

affair between Sukumar Ray and Kumari Bandana  

Panchal  aged  about  20  years,  daughter  of  

accused  no.1  Saroj  @  Suraj  Panchal.   On

Page 3

10.7.1990 at about 8.00 p.m. a hue and cry was  

heard  from the first floor of  the  house of  

accused no.1 Saroj @ Suraj Panchal and PW1 to  

PW4, PW9 and PW12 went there and saw accused  

nos.1 to 4 beating Sukumar Ray with iron rod  

and lathi and dragging him by tying his hands  

and  legs  through  wooden  staircase  from  the  

first floor to the ground floor and left him  

in the dange of Gobinda Mondal.  PW11 Tapan  

Kumar Pramanik took the injured Sukumar Ray to  

the Bagnan Hospital by his trolley van.  PW1  

Srikant  Ray  lodged  a  written  complaint  at  

23.25  hrs.  on  10.7.1990  in  Bagnan  Police  

Station.  Exh.2 is the G.D. Entry.  PW13 the  

sub-Inspector  of  the  Police  registered  the  

case  against  the  accused  and  Exh.3  is  the  

F.I.R.   Sukumar  Ray  died  at  1600  hrs.  on  

11.7.1990.

5. PW14 Dr. Kumud Ranjan Chatterjee conducted the  

post-mortem and found the following :    

i) One abrasion 2”x2” over left leg;

Page 4

ii) One bruise mark over left temple region  

with black eye;

iii)  One  lacerated  wound  4”x1”  X  bone  deep  

over left occipital region;

iv) One  lacerated  wound  2”x  ½”  X  bone  deep  

over right temporal region;

On dissection he found multiple diffused  

and  spotted  haematoma  on  the  scalp  

present,  depressed  fracture  over  right  

temporal occipital region with haemorhage  

inside the brain tissue.    

He  opined  that  death  was  caused  due  to  

injuries  sustained  particularly  the  head  

injury.   After  completing  investigation  the  

final  report  came  to  be  filed  against  the  

accused persons 1 to 4.  In order to prove its  

case the prosecution examined PW1 to PW19 and  

marked documents.  No evidence was let in on  

the side of the defence.  The Trial Court found  

accused  nos.1 to 4  guilty  of  the  charge  of  

murder and sentenced them as narrated above.  

On appeal the conviction and sentence imposed

Page 5

on  accused  nos.1  and  3  were  confirmed.  

Challenging the same they preferred appeal and  

this  Court  by  order  dated  19.10.2012  issued  

notice on the question of the nature of offence  

and sentence only.

6.      During  the  occurrence  appellants  

herein/accused  nos.1  and  3  along  with  two  

other accused beat Sukumar Ray with iron rod  

and lathi is established by the testimonies of  

the eye witnesses namely PW1 to PW4, PW9 and  

PW12.  Sukumar Ray died of injuries sustained  

during the occurrence is also proved by the  

medical evidence let in by the prosecution in  

the case.

7.     The learned counsel for the appellants  

contended  that  the  occurrence  took  place  on  

account of sudden provocation and the act was  

committed  by  the  appellants  without  

premeditation  and  it  would  fall  under  First  

Exception  to  Section  300  IPC  and  the  first  

appellant  is  80  years  old  and  the  second  

appellant  is  76  years  old.  Per  contra  the  

learned counsel appearing for the respondent

Page 6

State  submitted  that  the  conviction  and  

sentence imposed on the appellants are proper.

8. It is not in dispute that there was a  

love affair between Bandana Panchal and Sukumar  

Ray and it was not liked by the family members  

of Bandana Panchal.  On the occurrence night at  

about 8.00 p.m. Sukumar Ray went to the house  

of Bandana Panchal to meet her.  Annoyed by the  

presence of Sukumar Ray in the night in their  

house the appellants and other accused persons  

beat Sukumar Ray and dragged him from the first  

floor  to  the  ground  floor  through  wooden  

staircase which resulted in injuries.  Nobody  

would  tolerate  such  an  intruder  into  their  

house in the night hours.  By no means, can it  

be held to be a case of premeditation and it  

was a case of grave and sudden provocation and  

would come under the First Exception to Section  

300  IPC.  The  fact  situation  bears  great  

similarity to that in the decisions in Mangesh  

vs.  State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 SCC 123 and  

State  of  Punjab   vs.   Jagtar  Singh  &  Ors.  

(2011) 14 SCC 678.

Page 7

9. Looking  at  the  nature  of  injuries  

sustained by the deceased and the circumstances  

as enumerated above it can be concluded that  

the  death  was  caused  by  the  acts  of  the  

appellants/accused done with the intention of  

causing  such  bodily  injury  as  is  likely  to  

cause  death  and  therefore  the  offence  would  

squarely come within the first part of Section  

304 IPC and the appellants would be liable to  

be  convicted  for  the  said  offence.  The  

conviction of the appellants/accused nos.1 and  

3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is  

liable to be set aside.

10. We  are  of  the  considered  view  that  

imposition of seven years rigorous imprisonment  

on each of the appellants for the conviction  

under Section 304 Part I IPC would meet the  

ends of justice.   

11. In  the  result  the  Criminal  Appeal  is  

partly  allowed  and  the  conviction  of  the  

appellants for the offence under Section 302

Page 8

read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of  

life imprisonment each imposed on them are set  

aside and  -instead they are convicted for the  

offence  under  Section  304  Part  I  read  with  

Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven  

years rigorous imprisonment each.             

…………………………….J.           (T.S. Thakur)

……………………………J.

          (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi;

April 03, 2014