MUMBAI: Nearly five years after a vegetable vendor fatally stabbed a customer during a quarrel over a torn ₹10 note at Dadar railway station, a Sessions Court has deemed this was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder.
The court held that the stabbing occurred “suddenly in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel” and fell within the fourth exception to the definition of murder under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In a judgment delivered on Friday, Sessions Judge SS Adkar convicted Sonilal Sukhadev Mahanto of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000. He declined to convict him of murder. The court also directed that the time Mahanto has spent in custody be offset against his sentence.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on the night of June 24, 2019, near Platform No 1 of Dadar railway station on Senapati Bapat Marg. Mohammad Hanif had purchased a pumpkin from Mahanto and tendered a ₹10 note, which the vendor refused to accept as it was torn. When Hanif said he had no other note, the accused asked him to return the vegetable while using abusive language, leading to a quarrel. During the altercation, Mahanto stabbed Hanif with a knife. Hanif was taken to Sion Hospital, where he was declared dead on admission.
The court first recorded a categorical finding that the death was homicidal. Relying on the post-mortem evidence, it held that Hanif died due to “haemorrhagic shock due to stab injuries over the neck and back (unnatural).” The medical officer had found two stab wounds — one on the jaw and the other on the back — and opined that the injuries were possibly inflicted by a sharp weapon like the recovered knife.
The judge relied principally on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, both vendors present at the scene, who said the accused had stabbed Hanif during the quarrel. Recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused was treated as corroborative. Human blood was detected on the weapon and on the clothes of both the deceased and the accused, and the accused offered no explanation for the presence of blood on his garments.
The court held that although the accused had intentionally inflicted injuries sufficient to cause death, the case was covered by the exception relating to “sudden fight”. The judgment records: “From the evidence on the record, it is clear that the incident occurred suddenly in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The knife was available with the accused as he was a vegetable vendor. It is not as if during the quarrel, he brought the knife from somewhere else.” Under these circumstances, the act amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder, the court observed.
At the sentencing stage, the defence sought leniency on the ground that the 27-year-old accused was a first-time offender, had responsibility for his aged father and had already spent more than six years in custody. The court declined to reduce the sentence, observing that the reasons advanced were “of general nature” and that the accused “should have thought about the consequences of his act before doing the same.”