The Supreme Court has reduced the sentence of Mathu alias Jagdish from five years’ rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone, while maintaining his conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Arun Palli has observed that although the investigating officer claimed to have seized a stone and sent it for forensic examination, no forensic report was produced before the Court to establish that the stone bore the deceased’s blood or that it caused the injuries.
The case arose from an incident that occurred on February 12, 1997, in Dehradun. According to the prosecution, the dispute began over a wristwatch that the deceased, Padam Singh Shahi, had sold to one of the accused about fifteen days earlier for ₹500. Dissatisfied with the watch, the purchaser sought to return it, leading to an altercation.
The prosecution alleged that the deceased later went to the accused’s residence, where a quarrel escalated into a physical scuffle. During the incident, the deceased was pushed into a dry canal, and it was alleged that Mathu alias Jagdish also threw a heavy stone, causing fatal injuries. The injured victim was taken to Doon Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries.
The Sessions Court acquitted one co-accused but convicted Manua alias Puran, Ramu and Mathu alias Jagdish under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing each to five years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹2,000.
The Uttarakhand High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Subsequently, the accused approached the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, two of the appellants died, leaving Mathu alias Jagdish as the sole surviving appellant.
Buy Now: Supreme Court Judgements E-Compilation – May 2026
The Supreme Court closely analysed the post-mortem report, which recorded multiple severe head injuries, including a large lacerated wound with compound comminuted fracture of the skull.
However, the Court found that the injuries were more consistent with the deceased’s fall into the dry canal having a rocky bed, rather than injuries caused by stones allegedly thrown by the accused.
After evaluating the evidence, the Court observed that the nature of the injuries made the prosecution’s allegation that the appellant caused death by throwing stones not a plausible scenario.
Instead, the Court concluded that the fatal injuries were sustained because of the deceased’s abrupt fall into the rocky canal during the scuffle.
While the Trial Court and the High Court had convicted the appellant under Section 304 IPC without specifying whether Part I or Part II applied, the Supreme Court clarified that the facts attracted Section 304 Part II IPC.
The Bench held that the case reflected knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, but there was no intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, making Part II the appropriate provision.
The Supreme Court took note of several mitigating factors: the incident occurred nearly 29 years ago in 1997. The appellant was 33 years old at the time of the incident and is now over 60 years of age. The occurrence arose out of a sudden quarrel over a trivial dispute. The appellant had already undergone more than one and a half years of imprisonment. Two co-appellants had died during the pendency of the appeal.
Considering these circumstances, the Court held that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the sentence to the period already undergone, while maintaining the conviction.
Since the appellant was already on bail, the Court discharged his bail bonds.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
