Conviction modified from Section 302 to 304 Part I IPC as homicide was committed without premeditation during a sudden fight.

The deceased, Vishal Singh, had a love affair with the daughter of appellant Mahesh Singh and had allegedly lent the family ₹1,50,000

On July 8, 2016, the appellants allegedly called Vishal to their house to return the money, where he was shot by Mahesh Singh and assaulted with a ‘banka’ (chopper) by the other appellants, leading to his death

The Trial Court convicted all appellants under Sections 147, 148, and 302/149 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment

The appellants challenged the conviction, contending that the incident occurred without premeditation in the heat of passion when the deceased allegedly attempted to rape Mahesh Singh's daughter, triggering a sudden scuffle

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges of murder under Section 302/149 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt

2. Whether the act of the appellants falls under the definition of murder or should be mitigated to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC due to sudden fight and provocation

The Court primarily applied Section 300 of the IPC, specifically Exception 4, which stipulates that culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion

It relied on Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh to determine "intention" based on the nature of the weapon and provocation

Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, which held that the number of injuries is not decisive if the act was unpremeditated and occurred in a fit of anger

The court also referenced Ghapoo Yadav v. State of M.P. regarding the requirement that the offender must not have taken "undue advantage" to claim Exception 4

The Court observed that while the death was homicidal, the circumstances suggested a lack of premeditation

It noted the defense's version—that the deceased was pulled away while attempting an assault on the daughter—was plausible enough to suggest the incident occurred in the "heat of passion"

The Court reasoned that had there been a prior intent to murder, the appellants likely would not have chosen their own residence as the venue

Applying the principles of Exception 4, the Court found that although the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, they were inflicted during a sudden scuffle without the appellants taking "undue advantage" or acting in an unusually cruel manner

Consequently, the bench determined the trial court erred in applying Section 302 instead of Section 304

The life sentences were modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants (ranging from approx. 4 to 9 years), while the fines and default clauses remained unaltered