A fatal stabbing during a sudden quarrel without premeditation attracts Section 304 Part I, not murder.

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 IPC and Section 37(1)(a) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, for stabbing Bakarali during a quarrel arising after the appellant climbed onto the deceased’s house roof to connect electricity wires illegally.

The prosecution relied principally on two eyewitnesses, both relatives of the deceased; the trial court acquitted the two co-accused.

The High Court accepted the eyewitness evidence but agreed with the trial court that recovery of the weapon was not proved.

The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing, among other things, that the incident fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and that the sentence should be reduced.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence established the appellant’s guilt for the stabbing, notwithstanding the absence of independent eyewitnesses and the failure to prove recovery of the weapon.

2. Whether the homicide was murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

3. Whether the appellant’s act fell under Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC, and what sentence was appropriate.

Section 300, Exception 4 IPC excludes culpable homicide from 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; it is immaterial which party initiated the provocation or first assault.

Section 304 Part I applies where the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death or bodily injury likely to cause death; Part II applies where the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without that intention.

Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits proof of the portion of a custodial statement distinctly related to a fact discovered, but the investigating officer’s evidence must establish the relevant disclosure and discovery.

The judgment also applied Section 428 CrPC in directing set-off and considered the appellant’s conviction under Section 37(1)(a) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

The Court found the two eyewitness accounts consistent, natural, and supported by medical evidence; their relationship to the deceased and the absence of independent witnesses did not undermine their testimony.

It nevertheless held that the weapon recovery was not established because the pancha turned hostile and the investigating officer did not describe a specific act by the appellant leading to its discovery; the evidence therefore did not prove that the particular weapon was used.

The appellant had gone to connect wires, not to attack the deceased, and the confrontation escalated into a sudden quarrel involving both groups; the Court found no premeditation or undue advantage, bringing the case within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

However, the appellant inflicted two blows, one of which pierced the lung and caused death. The Court concluded that this supported an intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, attracting Section 304 Part I rather than Part II.

Given that the appellant had been in custody since 8 August 2016 and had already served more than ten years, the Court considered the period undergone sufficient.

The conviction and sentence under Section 37(1)(a) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act were maintained; set-off under Section 428 CrPC was directed, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in another case.

The connected applications were disposed of.