A single unpremeditated blow in a sudden quarrel attracts Section 304 Part II, not murder.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for stabbing his twenty-year-old son with a vegetable-cutting knife after an argument about the appellant’s consumption of hariya.

The prosecution’s case was that the son died at the scene from the abdominal injury.

The medical evidence recorded a penetrating injury and attributed death to haemorrhage; the doctor stated that instruments other than the knife could also cause the injury.

The informant, the appellant’s wife and the deceased’s mother, testified that she had not seen the stabbing; the other witnesses were not eyewitnesses.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed against that conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence established murder under Section 302 IPC, or whether the offence fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

2. If the conviction was to be altered, what sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant’s age and custody already undergone.

Section 300 IPC defines when culpable homicide amounts to murder. Under Exception 4, 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; it is immaterial which party provoked the quarrel or struck first.

Section 304 Part II IPC applies to culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

The Court considered the medical evidence of a single knife blow and the circumstances of a sudden argument over the deceased’s objection to the appellant’s drinking. It found no evidence of premeditation and concluded that the stabbing occurred in the heat of the moment.

On that basis, it held that the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and that the offence was culpable homicide not amounting to murder, warranting conversion of the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC.

In determining sentence, the Court noted that the appellant was approximately 88 years old and had undergone custody, and considered the length of the criminal proceedings.

The Court directed the appellant’s release forthwith if he was not required in any other case, and directed payment of ₹7,500 to the amicus curiae.