PRAYAGRAJ The Allahabad high court recently dismissed the appeal of an 82-year-old man convicted of murdering his brother in 1984 and directed him to surrender to serve the remaining part of his life sentence. A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay found that the evidence on record did not disclose any mitigating circumstances warranting conversion of the appellant’s conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).The appellant (Babu Lal) was convicted by the trial court in October 1984 for causing the death of his brother by repeatedly assaulting him with a ‘sabri’, an object used for agricultural digging. (Pic for representation)While rejecting the appellant’s plea to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone, the court observed that it could not extend such relief merely because the appellant was now 82 years old and had remained on bail during the pendency of the appeal for nearly four decades.The court observed: “The evidence adduced did not reflect a sudden and grave provocation or sudden fight account of which the court may examine the possibility of setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and hold the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part (II) IPC, There is no such mitigating facts available to scale down from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part (II) IPC.”The court said that though it was disturbed that the appellant would have to go back to jail after 40 years, the court could not do much, as it doesn’t possess the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.The appellant (Babu Lal) was convicted by the trial court in October 1984 for causing the death of his brother by repeatedly assaulting him with a ‘sabri’, an object used for agricultural digging.The counsel for the appellant had argued that the appellant had been accused of using an object which is not used as a dedicated weapon and was further used from the blunt side, which reflected that he had no intention to kill the deceased.It was contended that even if the prosecution case is taken in its entirety to be true and proved beyond reasonable doubt, the only offence for which the appellant could have been held guilty of and punished was for an offence under Section 325 IPC (causing grievous hurt).