Conviction Altered to Culpable Homicide as Fatal Injury Arose from Sudden Quarrel Without Premeditation

The Appellant was convicted by the Session Judge, Surguja, for the murder of his aunt, Basanti, and the assault of his uncle, Nansai

On 06.11.2022, a dispute arose regarding the untethering of cattle and a prior land disagreement

In a sudden quarrel, the Appellant picked up a wooden channel (a tool for bending iron rods) and struck the deceased on the head, causing fatal injuries

He also assaulted Nansai

The Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC (now Section 103 BNS)

The Appellant challenged the conviction, seeking a reduction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder

1. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature

2. Whether the Appellant was the author of the crime

3. Whether the act falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, warranting an alteration of the conviction to Section 304 Part II

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 304 (Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC, alongside the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Sections 103 and 104

It relied on the four-pronged test for Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC established in Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh and Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi): (i) sudden fight, (ii) absence of premeditation, (iii) heat of passion, and (iv) no undue advantage

Further, it applied Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, distinguishing that Section 304 Part II applies when there is knowledge of likely death but no specific intent to cause murder

The Court affirmed the homicidal nature of death based on medical testimony regarding parietal-occipital fractures

It identified the Appellant as the assailant through the consistent eyewitness testimony of PW-1

The evidence showed the incident was triggered by a spontaneous altercation over cattle; the Appellant did not arrive armed but used a weapon (wooden channel) found at the scene

The Court reasoned that although a prior land dispute existed, the attack was not premeditated but occurred in the "heat of passion"

Applying the Surinder Kumar criteria, the Court found no evidence of "undue advantage" or "cruel manner" beyond the act itself

Consequently, while the Appellant had knowledge that a head strike with a hard object was likely to cause death, the requisite "intent" for murder was absent

The conviction was altered to Section 304 Part II of the IPC (now Section 104 BNS)

The Appellant's sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, while the conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC were affirmed. All sentences are to run concurrently