Ajai Kumar Chauhan vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025 INSC 140 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__________OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9115 of 2018)

AJAI KUMAR CHAUHAN …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed

by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad dated 3rd May, 2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1914 of

1986, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant,

which in turn challenged the judgment and order passed by

the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri dated 30th

June, 1986 in Sessions Trial No.390 of 1985, thereby Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2025.02.01 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the 14:24:17 IST Reason:

Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to

1 suffer rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of

Rs.5,000/-.

3. The case of the prosecution, shorn of details, is as

under:

3.1 Pradeep Kumar (PW.2), Rajeev (deceased) and Desh Raj

(PW.3) and Amar (PW.4) were sitting on the rooftop on the

date of incident i.e. on 19th March, 1985 at around 8:30 p.m.

It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased, who was a

student of B.Sc., was studying while sitting on the rooftop of

the building. At around 8.30 p.m., Ajai Kumar (accused)

came to the door of the deceased/Rajeev and called him to

come downstairs. The deceased/Rajeev therefore went

downstairs alone. After some time, the witnesses heard cries

of the deceased “Dada ana, mujhe mar dala”. Upon hearing

the same, Pradeep Kumar (PW.2) rushed downstairs. The

other witnesses also came running and saw that accused-

Ajai Kumar was causing knife injuries to the deceased. All of

them intervened and apprehended accused-Ajai Kumar and

handed him over to the police. In the meantime, the accused

threw his knife in the water tank situated in the premises of

the cold storage. For medical treatment, the deceased was

2 initially taken to Dr. Kunwar Pal (PW.7) and after preliminary

treatment the deceased was taken to Government Hospital

Sirsaganj, where Dr. A. K. Garg (PW.1) treated him.

3.2 The evidence of PW.1 shows that the deceased had

sustained two injuries, which are as under:

“i. One stab wound measuring 1 cm x muscle deep, on the left side of stomach, 12 cm away from Naval, in the position of 10 O’Clock. Angle acute. ii. One stab wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the right side of the chest, 1½ cm from the right nipple. Angle acute.”

3.3 Since the condition of the deceased was serious, he was

being taken for further treatment to S.N. Hospital, Agra.

However, before he could reach the hospital, he succumbed

to the injuries.

4. The learned Trial Judge as well as the Division Bench of

the High Court have concurrently relied on the evidence of

PWs.2, 3 and 4, being eye witnesses to the incident.

5. Shri Ravindra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the appellant submits that the case of the prosecution is

full of lacunae. It is submitted that though the incident is

alleged to have occurred in the house of Pradeep Kumar

3 (PW.2) and the deceased, the blood stains are not found there

and therefore the finding that the place of incident is at the

residence of PW.2 and the deceased is not sustainable. It is

further submitted that the prosecution has also failed to

prove any motive. It is lastly submitted that the prosecution

has falsely implicated the appellant.

6. Shri Vikas Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/State, on the contrary, submits that the motive

has clearly been established. He submits that the appellant

had some friendly relations with one girl, which fact was

known to the deceased. He submits that the deceased had

teased the girl, and the appellant being angered by the said

fact had proceeded to assault the deceased.

7. The evidence of all the three eye witnesses would reveal

that the appellant is said to have come to the house of the

deceased. Thereafter, he called the deceased out, and when

the deceased came downstairs, the witnesses heard the cries

of the deceased. The witnesses then came downstairs and

saw that the appellant was assaulting the deceased. They

caught hold of the appellant and handed him over to the

police.

4

8. It is thus clear that what has preceded the assault has

not been witnessed by any of the witnesses. Insofar as the

motive as recorded by the learned Trial Judge is concerned,

from the evidence of the witnesses it is found that though

some suggestions were given with regard to the said motive,

the eye witnesses have denied the same.

9. It is also to be noted that both the appellant and the

deceased were young boys aged about 20-21 years at the

time of the incident and were students pursuing B.Sc. From

the evidence of the witnesses, it could be seen that both of

them were having cordial relations. The evidence would also

show that whenever the deceased had any difficulties

regarding his studies, he would consult the appellant.

10. From the evidence, as placed on record, it is difficult to

come to a finding that the appellant had come with a

premeditated mind to kill the deceased. The possibility of an

altercation taking place between the appellant and the

deceased for some reason and the appellant assaulting the

deceased in the heat of passion on account of a sudden fight,

cannot be ruled out.

5

11. Based on the discussion above, we are of the view that

the prosecution has failed to bring the case within the

meaning of Section 300 of the IPC. The possibility of the

incident occurring in the spur of the moment and the

appellant assaulting the deceased on account of sudden

provocation, due to a sudden fight between them cannot be

ruled out. We find that the appellant would be entitled to the

benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. As such, the

conviction of the appellant under Part I of Section 304 IPC

would meet the ends of justice.

12. The appeal is therefore partly allowed. The conviction of

the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is altered to the

one under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC.

13. As the appellant has already served the sentence for

eight and a half years and with remission it amounts to a

period of more than ten years, we find that the said sentence

would sub-serve the ends of justice.

14. The appellant is, therefore, directed to be released

forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

6

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

............................................J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

…..............................J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 29, 2025.

7