The Supreme Court of India has modified the conviction of the appellant from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC). The court also acquitted the co-accused due to the absence of sufficient evidence to establish vicarious liability under Section 34 IPC. The main accused, who had already spent over ten years in incarceration, was ordered to be released immediately.

1. Background:

• Case Reference: Criminal Appeal No. 871/2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 872/2022.
• Appellants: Yogesh @ Sonu Tharu (A2) and Pradeep Dabas (A1).
• Respondent: The State.

2. Facts of the Case:

• The incident occurred during a birthday party where an altercation between A2 and the deceased led to A1 shooting the deceased.
• The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the testimony of PW-19, the sole eyewitness, whose credibility was contested by the defense.

3. Trial and High Court Judgment:

• Both the Trial Court and High Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC, with additional charges under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
• The Trial Court's judgment was based on the acceptance of PW-19’s testimony despite most witnesses turning hostile.

4. Supreme Court's Analysis:

• For A1 (Pradeep Dabas): The Supreme Court found that the shooting occurred due to a sudden quarrel without premeditation. Thus, the court modified the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC) and sentenced A1 to the period already undergone in jail.
• For A2 (Yogesh @ Sonu Tharu): The court concluded that A2’s involvement did not warrant a conviction under Section 34 IPC as there was no clear evidence of instigation or participation in the shooting.

5. Judgment:

• A1: Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC with the sentence already served.
• A2: Acquitted of all charges.
• Both appellants were ordered to be released immediately if not involved in any other case.

6. Implications:

• The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the presence of premeditation and the applicability of Section 34 IPC in cases involving multiple accused.
• The release of A1 after a long period of incarceration reflects the court's inclination to temper justice with mercy in cases of spontaneous crimes.