A sudden, unpremeditated single blow not ordinarily sufficient to cause death attracts Section 304 Part II, not Section 302.

On 8 August 2014, following a dispute over a demand for Rs. 2,000, the appellant allegedly struck his father on the head with an iron rod, causing his death.

The informant, who said she witnessed the assault and was also injured when she intervened, and the deceased’s wife testified to the occurrence.

Medical evidence recorded a head wound and skull fractures, with death caused by intracerebral haemorrhage and shock.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 IPC.

He appealed, arguing that the incident was sudden and involved a single blow, warranting conversion of the murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC required interference because the assault was a sudden, single-blow incident and the offence was instead culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Whether the appellant’s sentence should be limited to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

The Court considered Sections 299 and 300 IPC, distinguishing culpable homicide from murder, and applied Section 304 Part II IPC to determine the appropriate offence where the circumstances established culpable homicide but did not, in its view, establish murder.

It also referred to Sections 100 and 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as corresponding provisions.

The appeal arose from convictions under Sections 302 and 323 IPC.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court accepted the evidence of the two eyewitnesses and the medical findings linking the iron-rod blow to the fatal head injury.

It nevertheless found no premeditation: the assault followed a sudden refusal to meet the appellant’s demand, and the appellant inflicted one blow.

The Court further noted that the injury was not opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

On those circumstances, it held that the prosecution had not proved murder under Section 300 IPC, but had established culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and replaced with a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.

The Court sentenced the appellant to the period of imprisonment already undergone, noting that he had served approximately 12 years.

The judgment does not expressly set aside the separate conviction under Section 323 IPC.