Nearly three decades after a neighbourhood dispute turned fatal in Dehradun, the Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of a man convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder while maintaining his conviction. The Court held that, considering the long passage of time, the appellant's age, and the period already spent in prison, the interests of justice would be served by limiting his sentence to the imprisonment already undergone.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on February 12, 1997. According to the prosecution, the dispute began over a wristwatch that the deceased, Padam Singh Shahi, had sold to one of the accused around fifteen days earlier. The buyer allegedly wanted to return the watch, claiming it was defective.
The disagreement escalated into a physical altercation near a dry canal. The prosecution alleged that Padam Singh was pushed into the canal and sustained serious head injuries, later dying at the hospital. Three men, including Mathu alias Jagdish, were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Their conviction was later affirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, two of the three appellants died, leaving Mathu alias Jagdish as the sole surviving appellant.
The Court closely examined the testimony of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, and the post-mortem report. It noted that while witnesses alleged that stones had been thrown at the deceased, the nature of the injuries suggested that they were more consistent with a fall into the dry, rocky canal than with injuries caused by stones. The Court also observed that although the investigating officer claimed to have seized a stone for forensic examination, no forensic report was produced before the trial court.
Court's Observations
The Bench clarified the distinction between the two parts of Section 304 IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Court observed,
"We are of the view that it is Part II of Section 304 IPC which is applicable in the facts of this case."
Referring to the circumstances surrounding the incident, the Bench noted that the altercation had arisen suddenly over a personal dispute and had escalated into a scuffle. It found that the injuries suffered by the deceased were attributable to his fall into the rocky canal.
The judges also took into account that the incident occurred in 1997, almost thirty years ago, and that the appellant, who was about 33 years old at the time, is now over 60 years of age. The Court further recorded that he had already undergone more than one and a half years of imprisonment.
Decision
Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court upheld Mathu alias Jagdish's conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder but modified the sentence.
The Bench observed,
"It would meet the ends of justice if we alter the sentence of imprisonment from RI for five years to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction."
Since the appellant was already on bail, the Court discharged his bail bond and disposed of the appeal to the extent of modifying the sentence.
Case Details
Case Title: Mathu Alias Jagdish v. State of Uttarakhand
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2024 of 2012
Judge: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli
Decision Date: June 25, 2026
-300x169.webp)
