A sudden, unpremeditated fatal shot during a quarrel attracts Exception 4 to Section 300.

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, for fatally shooting Thilakraj with a revolver.

The incident occurred during a verbal quarrel near a hotel on 1 October 2018; the trial court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 307 IPC.

On appeal, the appellant challenged, among other matters, the reliability of the prosecution evidence, the timing and circumstances of the complaint, and the firearm evidence.

The High Court upheld the finding that the appellant fired the fatal shot but reconsidered whether the offence amounted to murder or culpable homicide.

Whether the evidence established that the appellant fired the fatal shot and whether the conviction could be sustained despite the alleged inconsistencies concerning the complaint, witnesses, and firearm evidence.

Whether the killing amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, attracting Section 304 Part I IPC.

Whether the convictions under the Arms Act should be disturbed.

Section 302 IPC applies to murder, while Section 300 Exception 4 excludes a killing from murder where it is committed, without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, provided the offender does not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner; culpable homicide with the requisite intention is punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC.

The Court also considered the Arms Act provisions under which the appellant had been convicted—Section 3 read with Section 25(1-B)(a), Section 5 read with Section 27(1), and Section 30—and left those convictions undisturbed.

No precedents were cited in the judgment.

The Court found the testimony of PWs.1–4 consistent on the appellant’s arrival, the quarrel, and his firing at the deceased; it also relied on the medical and ballistic evidence linking the revolver to the fatal shot.

It rejected the principal challenges to the FIR and the alleged discrepancies in the recovery evidence as insufficient to displace the eyewitness account.

However, the witnesses’ account indicated that the deceased initiated the exchange, the appellant was unaware of his arrival, and the shooting followed a sudden verbal quarrel.

The appellant fired one shot, and the evidence did not establish premeditation or an attempt to fire further shots.

The Court therefore applied Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and reduced the conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC.

The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000, with one year’s simple imprisonment in default.

The Arms Act convictions and sentences were confirmed; the trial court’s orders concerning compensation were left undisturbed, substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently, and set-off was granted.