A Danda Picked Up At The Scene: Delhi HC Recasts Sudden-Quarrel Killing As Culpable Homicide, Cuts Life Term To 7 Years

At about 1:15 a.m. on 27 November 2017, following a quarrel, the appellant picked up a danda lying at the scene and struck Balbir on the head.

Balbir died from cranio-cerebral injuries.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The High Court upheld the finding that the appellant caused the fatal injuries; the appeal principally challenged the murder conviction and sought the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Section 300, Exception 4 IPC provides that culpable homicide is not murder where it is committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly or unusually.

Under Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, once the prosecution proves an intentional infliction of a particular injury and that injury’s objective sufficiency to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the requirements of Section 300, clause thirdly, are met; the Court must nevertheless consider whether a Section 300 exception applies.

The intention to cause death is assessed from the cumulative circumstances, including the weapon, whether it was brought or picked up at the scene, the nature and number of blows, and whether the incident arose from a sudden quarrel (Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P.).

Two blows delivered in a short-lived heat of passion do not, without more, necessarily amount to acting cruelly or unusually (Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana).

The Court found the eyewitness account, medical evidence, and forensic evidence sufficient to establish that the appellant caused the fatal head injuries.

It noted the absence of prior enmity or premeditation and that the appellant picked up the danda at the scene.

Although the deceased fell after the first blow and the appellant inflicted a second, both acts occurred within a short period, without time for the appellant to cool down.

The Court therefore held that the second blow did not, in these circumstances, establish cruel or unusual conduct barring Exception 4.

It also extended the benefit of doubt concerning the alleged threat to kill, noting that PW1 did not mention it in his examination-in-chief.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

The appellant was sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000, with one-and-a-half years’ simple imprisonment in default of payment.