Sadhu Singh Harnam Singh vs The State Of Pepsu

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Not extracted

Decision Date: 8 October 1953

Coram: Mahajan, J.

In this case the Supreme Court of India recorded that the appeal was filed by Sadhu Singh after he obtained special leave. The appeal challenged a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Patiala dated 2 June 1952, which had upheld a sentence of transportation for life that had been passed against him for the murder of Harbachan Singh. The factual background, as explained, stated that on 29 October 1949 the deceased Harbachan Singh travelled to the village of Bihla with the intention of borrowing a camel from Nand Singh. Accompanying him were Chand Singh and Amar Singh, and the party arrived at Nand Singh’s residence between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. Upon reaching the house they learned that Nand Singh had gone to Sadhu Singh’s home. Nand Singh’s son was instructed to fetch his father from Sadhu Singh’s house and returned with a message inviting the group to Sadhu Singh’s residence. The parties proceeded to Sadhu Singh’s house where they found Nand Singh taking part in a liquor gathering; Sadhu Singh’s father, Harnam Singh, was also present. When Harbachan Singh, who was a Mahant, entered, Sadhu Singh rose, received him respectfully and expressed honour at the Mahant’s visit. The Mahant and his two companions were offered drinks; the Mahant accepted while the others declined. Later the Mahant, who was known to be addicted to opium, gave a young boy one rupee and asked the boy to procure opium of that value. Sadhu Singh observed that it was improper for a guest to send someone else to obtain opium in his own house and asked his father to provide opium directly to the Mahant. Harnam Singh complied and gave a small tin of opium to the Mahant. The Mahant took some of the opium from the tin and returned the remainder to Harnam Singh, who then thought that only a small quantity remained for his own use. Feeling annoyed, Harnam Singh made some resentful remarks. The Mahant did not appreciate these remarks, returned the opium he had taken, and prepared to depart with his companions. As soon as he stepped out of the room, a gunshot struck him in the chest, causing a mortal wound that caused him to fall. Chand Singh and Amar Singh promptly went to the police station and lodged a first information report at half past midnight on the 30th of the month. Based on that report the police registered a case against the accused under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The police initially considered that the accused was responsible for a rash and negligent act endangering human life and personal safety.

During the course of the proceedings, the deceased Harbachan Singh succumbed to the injuries that had been inflicted by the accused. Consequently, the original charge was altered to one under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the charge book was amended once more and the offence was recorded as one punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional District Magistrate who presided over the matter examined the material on record and concluded that a prima facie case existed against the accused only with respect to the provision of Section 304A. Acting on that assessment, the Magistrate formally framed a charge under Section 304A. He further determined that the evidence did not establish a prima facie case under Section 302, and therefore found no sufficient basis to commit the accused to the Court of Sessions. As a result, the accused was convicted under Section 304A. Since he had already endured detention as an under-trial prisoner, the Magistrate ordered his release upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 5,000 together with a surety of an equal amount, and imposed an undertaking that he would keep the peace and maintain good behavior for one year from the date of the order.

Following the Magistrate’s order, a revision application was filed before the Sessions Judge at Barnala by the public prosecutor, and a similar application was lodged by the heirs of Harbachan Singh. The Sessions Judge declined to entertain either application and dismissed them. Thereafter, two further revision applications were presented to the High Court, challenging both the Additional District Magistrate’s decision to discharge Sadhu Singh of the murder charge and his conviction under Section 304A. The High Court, in the revision proceedings, set aside both of the Magistrate’s orders and directed that the case be remanded to him for the purpose of framing a proper charge and committing the accused to the Sessions Court for trial. In compliance with that directive, the Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Judge then examined the testimonies of the three eye-witnesses identified as PW 3, PW 4 and PW 9, and held that the accused, Sadhu Singh, had discharged his firearm at the deceased with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as would ordinarily be sufficient to cause death, thereby finding him guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judge, however, observed that the accused’s mind had been impaired by alcohol, which had made him more prone to violent passion, and concluded that the ends of justice would be adequately served by imposing transportation for life. Accordingly, a recommendation was made to the local Government to commute the sentence to a shorter term of imprisonment. On appeal, the higher court upheld both the conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed.

The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was based principally on the testimony of three eye-witnesses designated as PW 3, PW 4 and PW 9. The first two witnesses, PW 3 and PW 4, were the individuals who had accompanied the deceased Mahant to the residence of Sadhu Singh and who likewise escorted him when he prepared to depart from that house. The other two persons named in the first information report, Amar Singh and Chand Singh, had no familial or other connection with Sadhu Singh; they arrived at the police station at half past twelve in the morning on 30 October, the alleged offence having taken place on 29 October at approximately eight o’clock in the evening. After the Mahant’s death, these two persons could not have any legitimate motive to protect the offender or to fabricate a version of events intended to lessen the alleged culpability. In the FIR, in the presence of Chand Singh, Amar Singh gave a narrative of the circumstances that led to the Mahant’s fatality. He stated that for about an hour they had been seated at Sadhu Singh’s house, but that neither he nor Chand Singh had consumed any alcohol because the quantity of wine was small. He further recounted that Sadhu Singh, who possessed a licence for a twelve-bore firearm, had attempted to prepare a cock for them, but the Mahant, Harbachan Singh, requested that the cooking not be formal and that they would take whatever had already been cooked.

Amar Singh continued that Sadhu Singh subsequently emerged from the chubara carrying his gun and began to walk about. The Mahant then declared his addiction to opium, withdrew a rupee from his pocket, and asked for opium to be fetched in exchange for the money. Sadhu Singh remarked that it would not be appropriate for the Mahant to spend money on opium while he (the accused) was hosting him, and he asked his father, Harnam Singh, to provide opium from his tin. The Mahant took a small quantity of opium (one mawa) from Harnam Singh’s tin, handed it to Amar Singh, and returned the tin to Harnam Singh. Harnam Singh protested that no opium remained in the tin for his own consumption, after which the Mahant returned the mawa of opium. Amar Singh described that this exchange occurred between the Mahant and Harnam Singh. He further asserted that Sadhu Singh was strolling outside the chubara with his gun while appearing intoxicated. At the request of Nand Singh, the Mahant rose from his cot, began to tie his turban, and announced that they would rest at his house and procure opium from a contractual shop. Amar Singh and Chand Singh, who were seated together in the chubara, also began to put on their shoes, after which they suddenly heard a report of a fire. The remainder of the FIR continues to relate the sequence of events that led to the Mahant’s injuries and eventual death.

According to the evidence, a sudden report of a fire was heard, after which Harbachan Singh claimed that the fire had struck him and that he had fallen down. Harnam Singh attended to Harbachan Singh’s injuries, while the witnesses identified only as I and Chand Singh stepped aside. Sadhu Singh, who was intoxicated, left the scene after having discharged a gun. The pellets from the gunshot struck Harbachan Singh in his left arm and on the left side of his abdomen, causing bleeding, and he was subsequently found lying injured in Sadhu Singh’s house. The record shows that Sadhu Singh bore no prior hostility toward Harbachan Singh and that the fire had broken out accidentally as a result of Sadhu Singh’s intoxication with liquor, which also led to Harbachan Singh’s injuries. The witnesses I and Chand Singh stated that they had known Sadhu Singh previously.

Amar Singh and Chand Singh both described the incident as an accidental death of the Mahant. The report does not state that Sadhu Singh was present at the moment when Harnam Singh protested that there was no opium left in the tin for him to eat, nor does it record that the Mahant returned the opium tin to Harnam Singh. However, the report clearly indicates that the altercation concerning the opium tin occurred between Harbachan Singh Mahant and Harnam Singh while Sadhu Singh was strolling outside the chubara, carrying his gun and being intoxicated. The report does not suggest that Sadhu Singh heard this conversation, became aware of the dispute between his father and the Mahant, or showed any resentment toward the Mahant for leaving his place.

Amar Singh, referred to as PW 9, did not assert in his statement that he had seen the accused aiming at the Mahant and firing. He merely reported that a gunshot was heard suddenly and that the Mahant was found to have been shot. The version presented by Amar Singh during the trial, which formed the basis for the appellant’s conviction, was found to be wholly inconsistent and contradictory to the account he gave in the first information report filed a few hours after the incident. In his trial testimony, Amar Singh narrated that the Mahant asked his brother-in-law to fetch opium worth Re 1, gave him a one-rupee coin, and that Sadhu Singh, standing outside the chubara near the door on the roof of the adjoining room, asked the Mahant not to spend money on purchasing opium. Amar Singh further alleged that Sadhu Singh then asked his father Harnam Singh to provide opium to the Mahant. Harnam Singh allegedly gave a dabbi containing opium to the Mahant, who took out one mawa of opium and returned the dabbi to Harnam Singh. When Harnam Singh retorted that no opium remained in the dabbi for him to eat, the Mahant resented the remark and returned the mawa of opium belonging to Harnam Singh. Amar Singh concluded his account by stating that Sadhu Singh was standing just outside the door at that time.

In the testimony, the witness said that he was present and was “witnessing the happening.” The Mahant then asked Nand Singh to rise and informed the parties that they would proceed to the house of Nand Singh, who was identified as a prosecution witness. The accused questioned the Mahant, asking whether the Mahant would depart from his house in that manner, and the Mahant answered emphatically “Yes.” The accused repeated his question, and the Mahant repeated his affirmative answer. At that moment the accused was carrying a firearm. He loaded the weapon, pointed it at the Mahant and discharged it. The bullet struck the Mahant in the left arm and also wounded him on the left side of the abdomen. After the shooting, Chand Singh, who was also a prosecution witness, and the deponent went to the police station at Bhadaur. There the deponent made a statement that, according to him, was not recorded by the police at that time. The police accompanied the deponent and Chand Singh in a motor lorry to the place where the incident occurred. They arrived in the village at about eleven or twelve o’clock at night, as the deponent repeated. They then reached the scene with the police at about two or three o’clock in the morning. The following morning they returned to the Bhadaur police station at about ten or eleven o’clock, when the deponent’s statement was finally recorded. The deponent insisted that his statement had not been recorded when he first arrived at the police station. During cross-examination he was asked why his earlier statement, recorded by the committing magistrate and identified as Exhibit PW-9/1, indicated that after the incident he and Chand Singh had gone to the house of Nand Singh, where the lambardars and Nand Singh met them, and that they had been sent to lodge a report at Bhadaur, whereas his present testimony claimed that the report had not been recorded on his first arrival at Bhadaur. The deponent answered that the police had not recorded the report before they proceeded to the spot and that his present statement was the correct one. On further questioning the deponent described what happened when they reached the accused’s chubara. He said the accused touched the Mahant’s knees as a sign of respect. At that moment three or four pegs of liquor remained in the bottle. He noted that Nand Singh, the prosecution witness, was in possession of his gun and cartridges. The deponent asserted that Sadhu Singh, the accused, did not ask the Mahant for permission to be absent for ten or fifteen minutes in order to prepare chicken meat, and that he had not recorded any such request in the First Information Report, Exhibit PA. After requesting food from the Mahant, the accused went out with his gun to the roof of the adjoining room and began to loiter there. When a conversation about opium took place, the accused was present and was hearing the discussion from a close distance. When the talk about the opium took place,

According to the witness, the accused was walking with his gun and was standing in the doorway of the chubara. The witness then recalled that he had heard a portion of the First Information Report marked B to B, which stated that “this talk took place between the Mahant and Harnam Singh. Sadhu Singh accused was at that time strolling with his gun outside the chubara.” He affirmed that he had made this statement and that it was correct. He further declared that he had not stated in the FIR that the accused had pointed his gun at the Mahant and fired at the Mahant’s left arm and abdomen, and he expressed uncertainty as to whether the accused had any prior enmity with the Mahant. The witness also recounted hearing a portion of the FIR marked D to D, which said “we heard the sound of an accidental gun fire.” He asserted that he had never made this statement and that it was incorrect. Likewise, he said that he had heard a portion marked E to E of the FIR, which alleged that “Harbachan Singh received injury due to the accidental fire by Sadhu Singh accused while he was labouring under the intoxication of liquor.” He maintained that he never made this statement and that it was also incorrect.

The Court observed that this testimony demonstrated a complete reversal in the description of Sadhu Singh’s conduct, shifting from the version given immediately after the incident to the version later presented before the committing magistrate and at trial. The earlier version suggested that the death was accidental or resulted from a rash, negligent act by the accused, whereas the later version portrayed the incident as a deliberate murder, describing an altercation after which Sadhu Singh allegedly loaded his gun, aimed it at the Mahant and fired. The Court noted that Amar Singh, who was part of the Mahant’s party, had no connection with Sadhu Singh, and no satisfactory explanation had been offered for why Amar Singh would provide a distorted account to protect Sadhu Singh. During the trial, the witness attempted to explain the discrepancy by claiming that the FIR was not recorded at the time of his original report but was taken later. The Court found this explanation contrary to the face of the evidence and contrary to the statements of Chand Singh, PW 3, and the Sub-Inspector of Police, both of whom positively affirmed that the FIR had been signed by Amar Singh at 12:30 A.M. on the morning of the thirtieth.

It was recorded that Amar Singh signed the first information report at half past twelve in the morning on the thirtieth day of the month. When the prosecution examined this witness, the cross-examination revealed numerous inconsistencies in his account of material points concerning how the incident occurred. Chand Singh, who was identified as the third prosecution witness and who had accompanied Amar Singh, largely affirmed the version of events narrated by Amar Singh during the trial. Chand Singh recited the following description of the accused’s conduct with the firearm: “The Mahant then asked Nand Singh, who is also a witness, to leave the place and go to his own house. At that point Sadhu Singh, who possessed a licence for a gun, picked up his gun and stepped out of the chubara. All of us then rose to our feet. The Mahant began to tie his turban. The accused had taken with him his bag or belt. He then stood at a distance of about five or six karms from the chubara door, on the roof of a Sabat, and told the Mahant that he would not allow us to leave. The Mahant replied that we would be allowed to go. The accused repeated his question and the Mahant repeated his answer. Finally the accused aimed his gun at the Mahant and fired.” Notably, Chand Singh did not corroborate Amar Singh’s claim that the gun was loaded at that very moment in the presence of the witnesses before it was discharged.

During the cross-examination of Chand Singh, he made a further substantive statement. He said, “When we went to the accused’s chubara, the accused touched the Mahant’s knees and said, ‘It is good luck that you have graced our house.’ After about five to ten minutes, Sadhu Singh, the accused, asked the Mahant for permission to leave, saying, ‘Give me leave; I will prepare chicken for you.’ The Mahant, however, told the accused not to indulge in formalities and said he would be glad to take whatever was ready in the house at that time.” The examining counsel then asked, “Is it true that when Harnam Singh and the Mahant were discussing opium, four or five minutes earlier Sadhu Singh, while intoxicated, was patrolling on the roof of his house outside the chubara and was carrying his gun with him?” Chand Singh answered, “That is incorrect. Before that conversation the accused was strolling outside the chubara while intoxicated, but he was not carrying a gun. When the accused later went out of the chubara with the gun and the belt, we did not inquire why he was taking the gun.” He added, “I had told the tehsildar that the accused fired the gun after aiming it at the Mahant. I do not know why the tehsildar either recorded or omitted that fact. (Exhibit D-B was read to the witness and his attention was drawn to this omission.)” The witness’s testimony therefore showed variation between his statements at the initial report, his trial evidence, and the remarks made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, raising questions about the consistency of his account.

The Court observed that the expressions indicating that the shot was aimed and fired do not appear in Exhibit D-B, nor do they appear in the witness’s statement recorded by the Magistrate. In the statement taken under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the witness described the incident as follows: “The Mahant then asked Nand Singh to leave the place for his house. Sadhu Singh, remarking, ‘would you go, would you go’, loaded his gun and fired a shot at the Mahant.” The Court noted that from the filing of the first information report through to the final stage of the trial, the witness provided varying accounts of what actually occurred. Earlier statements did not mention that Sadhu Singh was present during the conversation between his father and the Mahant, a conversation that had apparently created resentment, nor did they state that Sadhu Singh aimed his gun at the Mahant after loading it in the witness’s presence, or that he declared he would not permit the Mahant to leave as he had previously prevented others from departing his house. The Court perceived a clear attempt by the witness to portray the discharge of the gun—whether it was accidental or a reckless act intended to stop the Mahant from leaving—as an intentional killing. The last witness on this matter, identified as P. W. 4, Nand Singh, gave a detailed narrative of the incident. He recounted that the deceased began to tie his turban, after which Sadhu Singh left the chubara carrying his gun and a bag of cartridges. He then climbed onto the roof of the adjoining room, positioning himself at a distance of four or five karms from the chubara. Sadhu Singh asked, “Would you go?” and the Mahant replied emphatically, “Yes.” Sadhu Singh repeated the question and received the same answer. He then asserted, “I have not allowed anybody to go away like this in the past. Be prepared then.” While saying this, Sadhu Singh aimed his gun at the Mahant and fired, striking the Mahant in the left arm and the left side of the abdomen.

During cross-examination, the witness stated that his statement had been recorded by S. Haqiqat Singh, Assistant District Magistrate, Barnala, on 16-12-1949. He said he had heard the portion marked “A to A” and could not recall whether he had actually made that statement. He further testified that on the day of the occurrence they began drinking from early morning, and he denied the earlier claim that drinking started only about two hours before the incident. He said he had heard the portion marked “B to B” of his previous statement, Exhibit D-D, which purportedly stated, “We were drinking for about two hours preceding the occurrence,” but he was unsure whether he had made that declaration. He affirmed that it was a fact that they started drinking by sunrise, and he could not confirm the accuracy of the earlier recorded statements regarding the timing and nature of the drinking. This inconsistency in the witness’s recollection concerning the timing of alcohol consumption and the exact wording of his prior statements was highlighted by the Court as part of the overall assessment of the reliability of his testimony.

In the testimony, the witness stated that the drinking began at sunrise. The witness affirmed that the accused greeted the Mahant by touching his knees and uttering the words, “It is good luck that you have honoured us by your visit.” The witness said that he did not hear the accused say, “Please sit here, I will go and prepare chicken meat for you.” The witness then referred to the portion of his police statement marked Ex. D. A./1, which recorded that Sadhu Singh rose in order to make arrangements for the meals and asked whether chicken meat should be prepared. According to the statement, the Mahant replied that he would not trouble himself with preparing chicken meat and that whatever had been cooked in the house would be acceptable to him. The witness could not recall whether he had actually made that statement. The witness also referred to the portion of his police statement marked Ex. D. A/2, which alleged that he had asked Mahant Harbachan Singh to come to his house and be comfortable there and that he had also suggested that they should take some opium on the way from the contractor’s shop. The witness now declared that he did not make that statement and that the words were, in fact, spoken by the Mahant. The witness further observed that the accused was carrying his gun in a sling when the Mahant entered his house. While the Mahant remained with the party, the accused repeatedly left the chubara and also went downstairs on several occasions. The witness said that he might have told the police that the accused had said, “Be prepared. I had not allowed anybody to go like this in the past and I shall not allow you to go away.” The witness’s statement had been recorded by S. Mohan Lal, a second-class magistrate, under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The witness admitted that he had told that magistrate what the accused had said to the deceased before the shooting, and the note indicated that the Section 164 statement had been read to the witness and his attention was drawn to the omission. In the version of events given by the witness in his police statement marked Ex. D A, the witness described that Harbachan Singh returned a small dose of opium, rose, and began to tie his turban while seated opposite the door of the chubara. The witness said that Sadhu Singh, armed with his gun, was strolling on the roof of his house when Mahant Harbachan Singh stood up to tie his turban. The witness claimed that Sadhu Singh said to the Mahant twice, “Would you go now?” and that, after saying those words, Sadhu Singh immediately stopped and fired a shot. The Court observed that the witness appeared to have exaggerated the account and made a deliberate effort to modify the earlier narrative so as to establish the charge of murder against the accused. On a careful reading of the eye-witness testimonies and the various statements, the Court found that the episode occurred in a very short time and was sudden, and that there was no prior enmity between the deceased and the accused.

The Court observed that the relationship between Sadhu Singh and the accused was not one of prior hostility. Rather, the accused exhibited great respect toward the Mahant and was eager to extend every possible courtesy. It appeared that the accused was anxious to ensure that the Mahant would not depart his residence without receiving a meal and spending the night there. When the Mahant seemed intent on leaving, the Court inferred that the accused likely withdrew his gun without actually aiming it at the Mahant, intending only to frighten him enough to discourage his departure. Consequently, the Court found that the elaborate narratives presented by certain witnesses could not be accepted. Specifically, the Court rejected the notion that Sadhu Singh had been present at any quarrel between his father and the Mahant, dismissed the claim that he had loaded the firearm after personally intervening in such a dispute, and disallowed the alleged dialogue between the accused and the Mahant. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the suggestion that the accused deliberately took aim before discharging the weapon, or that he professed never before having permitted anyone to exit his house in that manner, constituted a later addition to the case designed to exaggerate the seriousness of the alleged offence. Turning to the question of special leave to appeal, the Court referred to the precedent set in Pritam Singh v. The State, where it was held that special leave under Article 136(1) of the Constitution would be granted only if exceptional circumstances existed, a substantial and grave injustice had occurred, and the matter possessed sufficient gravity to merit a review of the contested decision. The Court reiterated that special leave does not transform the appellate court into a third-time fact-finding body. However, the Court noted that if a lower court fails to appreciate the material impact of a sudden change in witness accounts and the resulting effect on the nature and character of the offence, it would be inappropriate for this Court to uphold such a decision, as doing so would result in a miscarriage of justice. In addressing these observations, the High Court had remarked that the FIR did not expressly state that the deceased was shot by the appellant, nor did it describe the firing as accidental. Yet, when the FIR was read as a whole, it was clear that the shot fired by the appellant caused the injury that ultimately led to the deceased’s death.

In the course of the hearing, the Court observed that the counsel representing the appellant, identified as S. Dara Singh, had failed to persuade the Court that any single discrepancy existed that would affect the core of the case. The Court then set out the principal facts as they emerged from the evidence. First, the deceased had entered the appellant’s chubara accompanied by Chand Singh and Amar Singh. Second, the appellant was present in the chubara at that time and was conducting a drinking party which included himself, Nand Singh and his father Harnam Singh. Third, the situation remained peaceful for a period until the deceased removed a small quantity of opium from a dabia that had been offered to him by Harnam Singh at the appellant’s suggestion; the remark made by Harnam Singh in response was taken as an insult by the deceased, who immediately prepared to depart. Fourth, the appellant expressed displeasure at the deceased’s abrupt decision to leave his house and attempted, without success, to persuade the deceased to remain. Fifth, the appellant subsequently left the chubara carrying his gun and cartridges; believing that the deceased had resolved to go away, the appellant discharged a shot at the deceased. The Court noted that the eyewitness testimony on all of these points was consistent and unanimous. The only variation among the statements concerned the precise moment at which the appellant exited the chubara and the exact words exchanged between the appellant and the deceased. In the Court’s view, these variations were immaterial and readily explained.

The Court further held that the High Court had erred in its conclusion that no single difference existed between the statements recorded in the first information report and those given at trial which struck at the heart of the matter. As previously indicated, the entire narrative regarding the nature and character of the accused’s act had been fundamentally altered. An act that, according to the facts set out in the first information report and the statements made to the police, could have been described as accidental, rash, or negligent, had been re-characterised deliberately as a purposeful murder. The Court reasoned that if such a change did not affect the core of the case, it would be difficult to conceive of any other circumstance that might. Consequently, the Court found that the High Court was plainly mistaken in convicting the accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The material placed before the Court did not establish that the accused had intended to fire at the Mahant. Instead, it appeared that the accused, while intoxicated, pulled the trigger without aiming at the Mahant, apparently to prevent the Mahant from leaving the premises.

The Court observed that the discharge of the firearm served only to stop the Mahant from moving away from his place, and that this conduct was wholly rash and negligent. In the worst view, the act could be characterised as manslaughter, but it could not be sustained as murder. The Court further held that the prosecution could not demonstrate that the accused possessed any intention to cause death, nor could it infer that he intended to inflict bodily injury of a nature that would, in the ordinary course of nature, be sufficient to cause death. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the evidence did not support a conviction for murder. The result, therefore, was that the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the lower courts was set aside, and the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. In the Court’s opinion, the period of detention already served by the appellant was sufficient to satisfy the ends of justice, and consequently the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith. The Court also noted that even if the offence had been construed as falling under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, no harsher punishment than the imprisonment already endured would have been imposed.