Supreme Court in Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat affirmed the alteration of conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II, IPC, observing that the entire incident occurred in the heat of the moment and that neither party could control their anger.
Apex Court further added weight to the above decision reasoning that the incident was not premeditated and that it took place inside the residence of Accused No. 1 due to a sudden quarrel and emotional upheaval between the parties.
Brief Facts
The present appeal was filed by Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala (appellant herein). In this appeal, challenge has been made to the judgment passed by the High Court whereby, though the High Court modified the judgment by altering the conviction of the appellant from one under Section 304 Part I to one under Section 304 Part II IPC but sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for five years while maintaining the sentence of fine. Per facts, on November 7, 2000, Onejaben journeyed to Godhra with her husband, Abbasbhai, to attend a wedding. However, due to a marital dispute germinating the same day between Onejaben and Abbasbhai, Onejaben went to stay at her father Asgarali Onali Lokhandwala's (Accused No. 1) home while Abbasbhai remained elsewhere. Later that day, at around 7:30 PM, Abbasbhai went to Accused No. 1’s residence to take back his wife, Onejaben. This visit ignited a heated argument between Abbasbhai and Accused No. 1, which escalated when Accused No. 1 pushed Arvaben (wife of informant Turabbhai Abdulhussain), causing her injury. In the ensuing confrontation, Abbasbhai's father, Idrishbhai and his brother, Husseni, arrived at the spot. Asgarali restrained Idrishbhai while his son, Hussainbhai Lokhandwala (Accused No. 2), fatally stabbed Idrishbhai, who subsequently succumbed to his injuries.
Issues
As per the factual matrix, primary legal issue was whether the actions of the accused, Accused No. 1 and 2, constituted culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC or a lesser degree of culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC. Moreover, the court sought to decide as to what would be the suitable quantum of sentence to be imposed on the Appellant.
Contentions of the Appellant
Hussainbhai, the appellant, contended that the trial court's conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC, 1860 was excessive. He argued that the incident was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of the moment knowing his sister was distressed by her In-Laws. He contended that his emotional state and the provocation from the ongoing family dispute should be regarded as mitigating factors for his quantum of sentence.
Contentions of the Respondent
The learned counsel for the state supported the High Court's judgment and noted that the State had not appealed against the High Court’s Order for alteration of conviction and modified sentence of the accused. They had argued that the appeal lacked merit and thus, should be dismissed. In contrast, the learned counsel for the informant opposed the present appeal, stating that the trial court's conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC was insufficient and that the High Court's modification to Section 304 Part-II IPC, 1860 was erroneous. They contended that the evidence clearly indicated a murder under Section 302 IPC and contended for overturning the altered conviction and sentence to ensure a more stringent conviction and punishment for the accused.
Observation of the Court:
The court observed that the incident, which resulted in the death of Idrishbhai and injuries to others, happened in the heat of the moment rather than being premeditated. The row arose from a longstanding matrimonial dispute and escalated when Abbasbhai attempted to retrieve his wife and keys from his father-in-law's (Accused No. 1) residence. The High Court originally reduced the charges from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II IPC, 1860, holding that the act was not premeditated but only a spontaneous reaction to the ongoing tension between the parties. The court affirmed with the High Court’s assessment that the emotional turmoil and immediate circumstances led to the fatal stabbing, which was less severe and more impulsive rather than a planned attack. Ergo, the court decided to uphold the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and modified the sentence of Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala to the period already served.
Regarding the above, the court observed: “On a cumulative analysis of the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, the picture which emerges is that there was a matrimonial dispute between Oneja and her husband Abbas. … On that fateful day, despite receiving calls from her husband, Oneja refused to come to his house. … When aunt Arvaben went to the residence of Asgarali to diffuse the situation, she was pushed back by Asgarali as a result of which she fell down and suffered injuries. Idrishbhai went to the place of occurrence followed by PW-5. … It was at that stage that Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala … brought a kitchen knife from inside the house and fatally stabbed Idrishbhai.”…. “The trial court had convicted Asgarali and Hussainbhai under Section 304 Part I IPC. … On appeal, the High Court … altered the conviction of both Asgarali and Hussainbhai from one under Section 304 Part I IPC to one under Section 304 Part II IPC.”…. “There was a history of matrimonial dispute … It is natural for a young man to be emotionally upset … It is quite possible that as a young man, Hussainbhai was overcome by emotion which led him to physically attack the deceased and his son (brother-in-law). … The fact that the incident was not premeditated is buttressed by the happening thereof inside the residence of Asgarali.”…. “We are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the entire incident had occurred in the heat of the moment and that neither party could control their anger which ultimately resulted in the fateful incident.”…..
Bench further added that, “Since the High Court had brought down the charge from Section 304 Part I IPC to Section 304 II IPC, we feel that it would be in the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellant Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala is further modified to the period of incarceration already undergone by him while maintaining the conviction.”…. “Much water has flown down the river by this time. … Therefore, while concurring with the impugned judgment of the High Court … we are of the view that the sentence imposed upon the appellant should be altered to the period of incarceration already undergone by him.”
Decision:
In conclusion, the court agreed with the High Court’s alteration of the conviction from Section 304 Part I to Section 304 Part II IPC, 1860 holding that “While maintaining the conviction of the appellant Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala under Section 304 Part II IPC, his sentence is modified to the period already undergone by him. In view of the above, appellant Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala is directed to be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.”
Case Title: Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of Gujarat
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 514 SC
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1691-1695 OF 2023
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date: August 14, 2024
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, Click Here
Picture Source :
