Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Elpres Mattoo @ Katty vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 16 January, 2025
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia, Prashant Kumar Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1995/2013
ELPRES MATTOO @ KATTY … Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR … Respondent
O R D E R
1. This appeal arises out of a petition for special leave to
appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by
the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, whereby the order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court has been reversed and the
Appellant-accused Elpres Mattoo @ Katty has been sentenced to
life imprisonment punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of this case are that a complaint was lodged by the
mother of the deceased victim on 4th November, 2006 at 10:30 PM
at Police Station-City, Jammu. It was stated in the complaint
that on 4th November, 2006 at 7:30 PM she was with her son
Vishal Matto in her house when the accused-Elpres Mattoo @
Katty came to their house and took away her with him on some
pretext. Since the son of the complainant did not return
immediately, she went outside and saw that only at some
distance a quarrel had taken place between her son and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
accused- Elpres Mattoo @ Katty. The accused stabbed her son
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.01.23
16:55:25 IST
Reason:
with a pair of scissors on his neck and ran away. The victim
was rushed to the hospital, but upon reaching there, he was
2
declared dead.
3. On the complaint made by the mother of deceased-victim, the
police lodged a first information report being FIR No. 81/2006
registered at Police Station, City, Jammu and after
investigation the police filed charge-sheet. The matter was
referred to the Sessions Court. The prosecution examined as
many as 15 witnesses in order to prove its case. The mother of
the deceased viz. Ruby was examined as PW-1, who was the sole
eyewitness to the incident and Dr. Sangeeta Choudhary, who
conducted the post mortem was also examined as a prosecution
witness. PW-1 (Ruby) – mother of the deceased, clearly stated
in her examination in chief that when her son was being taken
away by the accused from her house, she insisted her son to not
go as the accused owed money to his son and she had
apprehensions that the accused may harm his son. It was also
stated by her that the accused-Elpres Mattoo @ Katty did not
bear good character. This is the reason she went out of the
house immediately for she was apprehensive and then she saw her
son being attacked by the accused. She further stated that the
injuries were inflicted on her son by a pair of scissors which
the accused had lifted from a barber shop nearby.
The barber viz. Jagdish Singh was examined as PW-5, who in fact
turned hostile. There was another prosecution witness viz.
Fareed Ali Qureshi. This witness is stated to have taken
services at the above-mentioned barber shop a few minutes prior
to the incident, though even he has turned hostile.
3
4. The scissors were recovered from the place of the incidence,
during the investigation. The Trial Court, however, has not
believed PW-1 to be an eye witness and on this basis has
granted benefit of doubt to the respondent and has acquitted
the accused.
5. There are three ante mortem injuries on the body of the
deceased, which are recorded as under:
Injury No. 1 – Incised punctured wound 2.5
cm x 1 cm x 5 cm deep on left side of chest
vertically placed with upper angle acute
and lower rounded 10 cm above left nipple,
9.5 cm from midline and 9.5 cm below left
clavical.
Injury No. 2 – Incised wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm
on chin, horizontally placed. (bleeding
present).
Injury No. 3 – Abrasion on left side of
neck 6 cm x 2.5 cm above clavicle (red in
colour)
The first and second injury could be the result of a single
assault. Third is only an abrasion not likely to have been
caused by the actual assault. The serious nature of the first
injury could have resulted in the death of the victim. Injury
No. 3 is only a mere abrasion on the left side of the neck
which could have been caused on the deceased while he fell on
the ground.
4
6. The High Court in appeal came to the conclusion that the
incident took place on 4th November, 2006 and there is
promptness in filing of the FIR, which was registered at 10:30
PM on the same day, ruling out any fabrication or second
thought or falsely implicating anyone.
7. The contemporaneous record also corroborates the version of
PW-1–mother of the deceased viz. Ms. Ruby, the sole eyewitness.
We also see absolutely no doubt in the testimony of PW-1 and
therefore, in disregarding the statement of this witness, the
Trial Court has, in our opinion, committed a grave error, which
has resulted in the acquittal of the accused.
8. The only question is that whether it is an offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or a benefit
may be granted to the appellant-accused under Section 304 of
the Indian Penal Code, making it a case of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.
9. We are of the belief that the act attributed to the accused
comes under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code, which reads as hereunder:
Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if
it is committed without premeditation in a
sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel and without the offender’s
having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner.
10. We do not see any pre-meditation of the act in the present
murder case because when the accused had come to the house of
the deceased, he was apparently not armed with any weapon and
5
it is also the case of the prosecution that the weapon of
assault was the scissor, which the accused picked up from the
barber shop at that very moment.
11. For the above-mentioned reasons, we come to the conclusion that
it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We,
therefore, convert the conviction awarded to the accused under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to that of Section 304
Part-I, considering the nature of the case. The accused is
convicted under the provision stipulated in Section 304 Part-I
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is directed to serve a
sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that the
accused has already served a sentence of more than 5 years and
4 months, which shall be deducted from 10 years of sentence.
13. In view of the above, the appellant is directed to surrender
forthwith, to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.
14. The appeal is partly allowed.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………. J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………………………………………………………. J.
[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]
New Delhi;
January 16, 2025
6
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No. 1995/2013
ELPRES MATTOO @ KATTY … Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR … Respondent
Date : 16-01-2025 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAFor Appellant(s) :
Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Parth Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RThe criminal appeal is partly allowed, in terms of the signed
order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MANISH ISSRANI) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR)
AR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)