R. Banumathi, J.— These appeals arise out of judgment dated 17-11-2014 Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2009 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in and by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 IPC for the death/murder of deceased Irfan alias Golu. So far as the death/murder of Anil Chandrakar, the High Court has altered the conviction of the appellants from Section 302 IPC to Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for seven years.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 21-3-2008 at about 10.30 p.m. deceased Irfan alias Golu and deceased Anil Chandrakar were present near Holika dahan. An altercation took place between deceased Irfan alias Golu and Chotu which resulted in heated arguments. Thereafter, both the appellants Sunny Khanna and Pradeep Singh alias Jugu caught hold of the deceased Irfan alias Golu and the juvenile accused Chotu inflicted stabbed injuries twice on abdomen and right elbow and Irfan alias Golu fell down. At that time, second deceased Anil Chandrakar rushed to save Irfan alias Golu and then both the appellants are alleged to have caught hold of him and juvenile accused Chotu assaulted him by knife and caused injuries. Complainant Aavez Khan (PW 1) took the deceased persons to hospital where deceased Irfan alias Golu was declared dead. Deceased Anil Chandrakar also succumbed to injuries on 13-4-2008 i.e. twenty days after the incident. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on two counts.
3. Upon consideration of the evidence of Salim Khan (PW 10) and also Aavez Khan (PW 1), the trial court vide judgment dated 24-1-2009 convicted the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for causing murder of both the deceased Irfan Khan alias Golu and Anil Chandrakar, and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment.
4. In appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants thereby confirming the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them for causing murder of the deceased Irfan Khan alias Golu. So far as the death of the deceased Anil Chandrakar, as aforesaid in para 1, the conviction of the appellants was altered from Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
5. In his evidence, Salim Khan (PW 10) has stated that the appellant-accused Sunny Khanna and Pradeep Singh alias Jugu held the deceased Irfan alias Golu and juvenile accused Chotu stabbed the deceased Irfan alias Golu with a weapon like butter knife. When the deceased Anil Chandrakar ran to save Irfan alias Golu, the appellant-accused caught hold of Anil Chandrakar and the juvenile accused Chotu stabbed him in the abdomen. On raising alarm, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.
6. Mr S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Sunny Khanna, and Mr Dushyant Parashar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Pradeep Singh alias Jugu, submitted that Salim Khan (PW 10) is related to the deceased person Irfan alias Golu and, therefore, his solitary testimony ought not to have been made the basis for conviction, unless being corroborated. The occurrence was at the nighttime on the day of Holika dahan, a day prior to Holi and at that time it cannot be expected of the prosecution to examine any independent witnesses. Further, as pointed out by the trial court as well as the High Court, the evidence of Salim Khan (PW 10) is corroborated by the medical evidence as well as by the recovery of weapon from juvenile accused Chotu. When both the courts have accepted the evidence of Aavez Khan (PW 1) as credible witness, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the said concurrent findings.
7. So far as the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC regarding the death of Irfan alias Golu is concerned, from the evidence of Salim Khan (PW 10) it emerges that when preparation was going on to burn Holika and when they were all standing there, juvenile accused Chotu was using abusive language and Irfan alias Golu asked Chotu to stop using abusive language and there were heated arguments, scuffle and sudden fight between them. It is in these circumstances, the juvenile accused Chotu inflicted injuries on deceased Irfan alias Golu while the appellants herein held the deceased Irfan alias Golu. As the occurrence took place in the course of sudden fight between the deceased and the accused party, the occurrence would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The injuries inflicted on the deceased Irfan alias Golu is on the backside piercing the left lung which shows the intention of the juvenile accused who inflicted the injury. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries and considering the fact that the appellant-accused had not taken undue advantage of the deceased and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is modified as the one under Section 304 Part I IPC. It is submitted that both the appellants have undergone imprisonment for more than ten years.
8. In the result, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is modified to Section 304 Part I IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by each of the accused.
9. The appeals are partly allowed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.