Four Years Served, And The Court Said That Was Enough
Two men were serving life for murder. The Delhi High Court has brought the offence down to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and released them on the sentence already undergone.
The Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 and the sentence of life imprisonment, convicting the appellants instead under Section 304 Part II. Having regard to the weapon — a one-and-a-half foot wooden danda — the injuries, which were not opined to be grievous, the cause of death by septicemic shock, clean antecedents and satisfactory jail conduct, it held the sentence already undergone would serve the ends of justice and directed their release forthwith.
- Section 304 Part II has no minimum sentence, and a maximum of ten years.
- Time served can be the sentence — roughly four years and four years and a month here.
- Punishment must not be disproportionate to the crime, and each case is weighed on its own facts.
- An equitable balance between the rights of the victim's family and of the accused is what the Court said it was striking.
- Court
- High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
- Citation
- CRL.A. No. 1635 of 2025 with CRL.A. No. 255 of 2026
- Case
- CRL.A. No. 1635 of 2025 with CRL.A. No. 255 of 2026
- Decided
- 25 August 2026
- Outcome
- Appeals disposed of; conviction altered to Section 304 Part II and appellants released
What brought the offence down
The weapon used was a one-and-a-half foot wooden danda. The injuries were not opined to be grievous. Death followed from septicemic shock.
On that material the Court was inclined to bring the offence down from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code.
The conviction under Section 302 and the sentence of life imprisonment were accordingly set aside.
How the sentence was fixed
The maximum sentence for Section 304 Part II is ten years, and there is no minimum prescribed.
One appellant had by then served approximately four years and one month, the other approximately four years.
The Court noted that punishment serves as a deterrent to those disposed to take the law into their own hands, but should not be disproportionate to the crime; each case comes with its own peculiarities, and an equitable balance has to be maintained between the rights of the victim or their family and those of the accused.
Given the weapon, the nature of the injuries, the cause of death, the clean antecedents and satisfactory jail conduct, the sentence already undergone would serve the ends of justice. The appellants were directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and a copy of the order sent to the Jail Superintendent.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
When is murder reduced to Section 304 Part II?
Where the material — weapon, injuries, cause of death — does not support the intention or knowledge that murder requires. That is what the Court found here.
Can the time already served be the sentence?
Yes. Section 304 Part II has no minimum sentence, and the Court held the period undergone served the ends of justice.
Arguing a conviction down from murder
- Start with the weapon and the medical opinion on the injuries; both did the work here.
- Trace the actual cause of death — an intervening medical cause can change the offence.
- Have the jail conduct report and antecedents ready before the sentence is argued.
- Compute time already served precisely; it can be the whole of the sentence.
Source. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CRL.A. No. 1635 of 2025 with CRL.A. No. 255 of 2026, decided 25 August 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in