On account of lapse of memory owing to the intervening period, some minor discrepancies are inevitable and they may occur naturally but the accused cannot claim benefit of such minor discrepancies.

 2022 SCMR 2143

On account of lapse of memory owing to the intervening period, some minor discrepancies are inevitable and they may occur naturally but the accused cannot claim benefit of such minor discrepancies. The eye-witnesses have given details of the occurrence in a natural manner, which prove that they have witnessed the occurrence. In these circumstances, it can safely be said that the prosecution has brought on record reliable evidence to sustain the conviction of the petitioner.

The only question which requires determination by this Court is that in the given circumstances whether the conviction and sentence recorded by both the courts below commensurate with the act of the petitioner. We have noted certain material aspects of the case, which clearly reflect that the petitioner was minor at the time of occurrence; the occurrence has taken place at the spur of the moment and without any preparation or premeditation; the weapon used by the petitioner is ordinarily attached to the motorcycle/cycle for safety and the same without any stretch of imagination cannot be termed as a weapon for committing such like crimes. All these aspects when read conjointly with the statement of the petitioner under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., it further strengthens the view of this Court that the occurrence has taken place without premeditation and possibility cannot be ruled out that the same was result of some trivial altercation/use of filthy language as stated by the petitioner. These aspects when adjudicated, there is no second cavil to this proposition that the petitioner has made out a case, which squarely attracts the provision of Section 302(c) PPC. During the course of proceedings, it was argued by the learned defence counsel that the petitioner was aged about 14 years at the time of occurrence, which has not been rebutted by the learned Law Officer. Keeping in view the nature of the occurrence as stated above, we are of the view that the sentence of imprisonment for life would be too harsh for the petitioner. Consequently, we convict the petitioner under Section 302(c) PPC and sentence him to the period, which he has already undergone. The amount of fine and the sentence in default whereof shall remain intact.