Assault committed in the heat of the moment without premeditation attracts Section 304, not Section 302 IPC.

The appellant, grandson of the deceased, was prosecuted for allegedly assaulting his 75-year-old grandmother with a cuttari after she refused his demand for approximately ₹700 received as senior-citizen pension.

The incident allegedly occurred on 26 May 2012, and the deceased was found dead the following morning.

The appellant was arrested from his father-in-law’s residence, and the weapon was allegedly recovered near Bansal Brickfield pursuant to information provided by him, in the presence of seizure witnesses.

The Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

During trial, several material witnesses—including the complainant and family members—turned hostile and stated that the deceased had died after falling from a cot.

The medical evidence, however, disclosed multiple lacerated wounds, bruises, fractured ribs and other injuries.

The High Court also considered the procedural irregularity in declaring PW-9 hostile during cross-examination.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence, including the alleged recovery of the cuttari, medical evidence and statements of the witnesses, established the appellant’s complicity in the death of the deceased beyond the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

2. Whether the incident occurred without premeditation and in the heat of the moment, thereby warranting alteration of the conviction and sentence to one under Section 304 of the IPC.

3. Whether the procedural manner in which PW-9 was declared hostile affected the reliability of the prosecution evidence.

The Court applied Section 302 of the IPC, which prescribes punishment for murder, and Section 304 of the IPC, which applies where culpable homicide does not amount to murder.

The Court relied on the principles governing appreciation of hostile-witness testimony, including that evidence supporting the prosecution must be assessed in the context of the manner in which the witness was declared hostile and cross-examined.

It also considered the evidentiary value of discovery of a weapon pursuant to information supplied by the accused, the corroborative value of seizure witnesses, and medical evidence establishing injuries consistent with assault by a sharp-cutting weapon.

The Court further applied the principle that absence of premeditation, occurrence in the heat of the moment, lack of prior enmity, and the surrounding circumstances may justify treating the offence as culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder.

The appellant was directed to execute a bond under Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The High Court found the prosecution case substantially weakened because the complainant and several family and neighbouring witnesses denied the alleged assault and stated that the deceased had fallen from a cot.

It held that the evidence of PW-9 could not safely be relied upon to support the prosecution because the Trial Court declared him hostile during cross-examination without stopping the cross-examination and permitting a fresh cross-examination as a hostile witness.

Nevertheless, the recovery of the cuttari at the appellant’s instance, the evidence of the seizure witnesses, the indication of a possible confession to PW-10, and the medical evidence of sharp-weapon injuries established the appellant’s involvement in the assault.

However, the Court found no evidence of prior enmity or premeditation.

It considered that the assault followed a sudden demand for money and occurred in the heat of the moment, while some injuries may also have resulted from the deceased’s attempt to rise and her subsequent fall, particularly in view of her paralysis.

These circumstances made a conviction for murder under Section 302 disproportionate, though they supported culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304.

The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was altered to an offence under Section 304 of the IPC, and the sentence was limited to the 11 years of incarceration already undergone by the appellant.

As the appellant was on bail, the Court directed that he be set at liberty and discharged from his bail bonds, subject to execution of a bond under Section 437A CrPC for six months.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of, with directions to transmit the judgment and Trial Court Record for compliance.