Delhi High Court on Homicide: Conviction Altered from Murder to Culpable Homicide; Co-accused Acquitted

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court modified the conviction of the appellant, Ram Avtar, from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC, holding that there was no evidence of premeditation or intention to kill. The act occurred in the course of a drunken quarrel, amounting only to knowledge of likely death. Considering that the appellant had already undergone over five years in custody, his sentence was reduced to the period already served. The co-accused, Visharad, was acquitted due to lack of corroborative evidence beyond “last seen” circumstances.

Background:

• On 23 September 2001, Police Station Badarpur received information that one man had died during a drinking session at the house of Lallan Kabadi.

• The deceased, Ram Dulare, was found with abrasions on the neck; post-mortem indicated death due to asphyxia from manual strangulation.

• The accused, Ram Avtar (the deceased’s son-in-law) and Visharad, were arrested and charged under Sections 302/34 IPC.

• The trial court convicted both under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

• In appeal, both accused contended that conviction was based on interested testimony, that there was no motive, and that the confession allegedly made by Ram Avtar was fabricated.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court found that “last seen” evidence of the accused and the deceased drinking together was credible and corroborated by witness statements (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-9).

• The extra-judicial confession made by Ram Avtar to Mahendra (PW-9, son of the deceased) was deemed natural and voluntary, as it was accompanied by conduct—giving ₹1,000 for funeral expenses and urging silence.

• There was, however, no proof of motive or pre-planning. The Court noted the possibility of a sudden quarrel under intoxication, leading to a scuffle and unintentional strangulation.

• Regarding the co-accused Visharad, the Court held that mere presence and “last seen” evidence, without participation or recovery linking him to the act, could not sustain conviction under Section 302/34 IPC.

• The Court reiterated that for murder under Section 302, prosecution must establish intention to cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death, which was absent here.

Decision:

• Ram Avtar’s conviction was modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC, and his sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

• Visharad was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Punishment for murder.

• Section 304 Part-II, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder where death is caused with knowledge but without intention.

• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Common intention.

• Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Statements to police during investigation.

• Article 226, Constitution of India – Writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

Citation: 2025:DHC:XXXXXX

Case: Ram Avtar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Visharad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav

Date of Decision: 12 November 2025

Criminal Appeal Nos.: 67 of 2003 & 75 of 2003