Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder: Single Blow Without Premeditation During Sudden Quarrel Attracts Section 304 Part-II.

The Appellant, Virendra Singh, was the cousin of the informant, Narsingh Pal. On February 16, 1986, the Appellant’s wife, Baby, took refuge at the informant’s house due to domestic torture.

At 2:00 P.M., the Appellant arrived armed with a wooden plank, abusing and assaulting his wife and the informant’s wife. When the informant’s son, Ravikant (deceased), intervened to protect Baby, the Appellant struck him once on the head with the wooden plank and fled.

Ravikant succumbed to a fractured parietal bone and internal haematoma while being transported to the hospital.

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

The Appellant challenged the conviction, seeking a reduction to Section 304 IPC.

1. Whether the prosecution proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the act constitutes "murder" under Section 300 IPC or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" under Section 299 IPC, warranting a conversion of the conviction to Section 304 IPC?

The Court applied the distinction between Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as elucidated in Anbazhagan v. State (2024).

It relied on Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the four elements required to prove murder under Section 300 'Thirdly': presence of bodily injury, nature of injury, intention to inflict that specific injury, and whether said injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The Court also applied Section 154 of the Evidence Act, noting that the testimony of a "hostile" witness is not entirely washed off and can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution.

The Court found the eyewitness testimony of PW-2 (neighbour) and PW-3 (mother) consistent regarding the date, time, and manner of the assault, corroborated by the medical evidence of a fatal head injury caused by a blunt object.

The Court observed that the Appellant and the deceased were close relatives with no prior enmity. The incident occurred in the "heat of passion" and a "spur of the moment" without premeditation when the deceased intervened in a domestic quarrel.

Applying the principles from Anbazhagan, the Court inferred that while the Appellant had the "knowledge" that a blow to the head with a wooden plank was "likely to cause death" (satisfying Section 299(c)), he lacked the specific "intent" to murder or the knowledge that the act was "immensely dangerous" in all probability (Section 300).

The single blow and the fact that the Appellant fled immediately indicated a lack of premeditated intent to kill.

The Court partly allowed the appeal, converting the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC. The Appellant was sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,00,000, out of which ₹1,80,000 is to be paid as compensation to the deceased's parents under Section 357 CrPC. The Appellant’s bail was cancelled, and he was ordered into custody to serve the remainder of the sentence.