Conviction Modified to Section 304 Part-II IPC for Sudden Assault Without Premeditation or Deadly Weapons

On March 6, 2023, a verbal altercation occurred between the appellants and the deceased, Mukesh Lanjewar, regarding a debt of ₹2,500

The appellants assaulted the deceased with hands, fists, stones, and a danda

The mother (PW1) and brother (PW2) of the deceased witnessed the assault

The deceased returned home but later died from shock resulting from blunt trauma to the chest, which damaged coronary vessels

While the Sessions Judge, Durg, convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC for murder, the appellants contended on appeal that the incident occurred in a heat of passion without premeditation

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

2. Whether the appellants were the perpetrators of the crime

3. Whether the conviction should be altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC

Section 300 (Exception 4) of the IPC, which reduces murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion

The court relied on Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana regarding sudden fights

Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana for factors distinguishing Section 302 from 304 IPC

Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, which defines "undue advantage" and "cruel manner" within Exception 4

Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the four specific ingredients required to invoke Exception 4

The court affirmed the homicidal nature of death based on medical evidence (PW9) confirming blunt trauma and coronary vessel damage

The appellants' presence was established by eyewitness testimony (PW1, PW2) and FSL reports showing human blood on their clothes

The court found that the trial court erred in convicting for murder. It reasoned that the dispute was sudden, regarding a small sum of money, and occurred without premeditation

The medical officer (PW9) admitted that the external injuries were "simple" and not typically sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course

Since the appellants used weapons easily available at the scene (stones, danda) rather than lethal weapons and did not act in an unusually cruel manner, the court determined the act lacked the specific "intent" for murder but carried the "knowledge" of likely death

It set aside the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and altered it to Section 304 Part-II IPC. The sentence of life imprisonment was modified to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment

The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellants were directed to serve the remainder of the modified sentence