Alteration of Conviction from Section 302 to 304 Part II IPC for Deaths Resulting from Sudden Intoxicated Quarrels

The Appellant and the deceased, who were close friends and habitual liquor consumers, entered the Appellant's tenanted room on February 29, 2020, to drink.

A trivial altercation ensued over the payment for liquor, during which the deceased allegedly slapped the Appellant.

In a fit of rage and state of intoxication, the Appellant picked up a brick from outside the room and repeatedly struck the deceased’s head, causing fatal injuries.

The Appellant made an extra-judicial confession to his landlord (PW-4), who discovered the body and informed the police.

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC (Murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The Appellant challenged the conviction, claiming a broken chain of circumstantial evidence and lack of premeditation.

1. Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence and a valid extra-judicial confession to sustain a conviction.

2. Whether the act of killing, committed in the heat of passion following a sudden quarrel and provocation, constitutes "Murder" under Section 302 IPC or "Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder" under Section 304 IPC.

The Court primarily applied Section 300 of the IPC, which defines Murder, specifically noting Exception 1 (Grave and Sudden Provocation) and Exception 4 (Sudden Fight).

It distinguished between "intention" and "knowledge" under Section 304 Part II IPC, which applies when an act is done with knowledge of its likely fatal consequences but without the specific intention to cause death.

The Court relied on the precedent in Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. State of Maharashtra (2025), which held that assaults occurring without premeditation or pre-planned weapons during sudden fights do not warrant the gravest criminal intent.

The Court affirmed the Appellant’s involvement based on the "last seen" theory (PW-5), the credible extra-judicial confession (PW-4), and forensic DNA matching the deceased’s blood to the Appellant’s clothes (PW-18).

The Court observed that the Trial Court failed to properly weigh the genesis of the occurrence.

The Court noted that the weapon (a brick) was not pre-planned but picked up at the spur of the moment from a katcha plot.

Recognizing the high level of intoxication of both parties (confirmed by FSL at 20.6 mg/100ml) and the immediate provocation caused by the deceased slapping the Appellant, the Court determined there was no premeditated "intention" to kill.

While the Appellant possessed the "knowledge" that striking a head with a brick could be fatal, the act fell under the exceptions to Section 300 IPC as it arose from a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion.

The conviction was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC, and the sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to eight years of rigorous imprisonment.

The fine of Rs. 50,000 and the compensation directions issued by the Trial Court remained undisturbed.