The Bombay High Court recently reduced a man's life sentence to 10 years in prison. The man had killed his own brother. However, the court said the case would be treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, not murder.

The court noted that the brother had habits like smoking tobacco and consuming gutka. He would often fight and even assault the man and their elderly mother whenever they tried to stop him from these habits.

Background of the case:

Hemant Devrukhkar (40), who killed his brother Sainath by smashing his head and face with a large cement block, was held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The judgment was given by a bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Shyam Chandak.

The incident happened when Sainath attacked Hemant, who was suffering from jaundice at that time. Their mother (prosecution witness no. 1) and Hemant were unhappy with Sainath’s addiction. Whenever they tried to advise or help him, Sainath would behave arrogantly and abuse their mother. Sometimes, he even assaulted her when she scolded him for his addiction. Even after many efforts by Hemant, Sainath did not change his behaviour.

Court Findings
The judges said in their order.

"We hold that the prosecution has established that Sainath was addicted to tobacco and gutkha; although he was given an understanding by the mother and the Appellant, he was not improving. On that count, there used to be quarrels between Sainath and the Appellant. In the previous night Sainath had consumed tobacco and he was spitting inside the room making an irritating noise. At that time, the Appellant was unwell and he had told Sainath to give up that addition. On that count a quarrel had occurred between the brothers and during that dispute, Sainath had assaulted the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant had assaulted Sainath on the head by means of the paver block and caused him the fatal injuries leading to his death and immediately, he went away,"

The bench rejected Hemant’s claim that his mother’s testimony cannot be trusted just because she turned hostile in the trial court.

The judges agreed with Additional Public Prosecutor Ashish Satpute that even if a witness turns hostile, the parts of their statement that support the prosecution can still be used. It does not mean the entire testimony must be rejected.

The judges also said there was no reason for the mother to file a false case against her own son.

Legal Reasoning:

They held that the case comes under Explanation 1 of Section 300, which means that if a person is continuously troubled, he may lose self-control at some point and commit an offence.

After applying the mother’s testimony to the facts, the judges said that Sainath’s actions were “unbearable.”

The bench altered Hemant’s conviction from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC.

Court’s Observations:

The judges said:

"The mother and the Appellant were fed up due to his vices. This was quite natural because Sainath used to beat them even though they used to persuade him to give up his addictions and improve. Sainath further created hardship by spitting tobacco inside the room and keeping it unhygienic. The family had poor financial background. At the time of the last quarrel, Sainath had assaulted the Appellant, though he was unwell, had not eaten and not at fault. On the contrary, he wanted Sainath to give up his additions and improve. In this background, we are of the view that the cumulative and continued abusive behaviour of Sainath towards the Appellant and their mother over a period of time coupled with the provocative assault to the Appellant by Sainath during their last quarrel resulted in continuing the stress by provocation, which ultimately led to the unfortunate homicidal death of Sainath. Therefore, the present case is covered with Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC,"

Sentence Ordered:

While setting aside the life sentence, the bench ordered:

"Instead the Appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs 5,000in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months."

With these observations, the bench allowed the appeal modifying the October 2024 judgment of the Mumbai Sessions Court.

 CASE DETAILS: Hemant Vasant Devrukhkar vs State of Maharashtra