Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is unavailable where the accused returns armed after a cooling-off interval.

On 1 December 2013, a dispute arose between the parties, who were related, concerning irrigation and possession of agricultural land.

According to the prosecution, after an initial altercation in the field, Ramakant Tiwari, Chandrakant Tiwari, Saroj Tiwari and Kaushal Kishore Tiwari returned armed with firearms to the informant Ashok Kumar’s residence.

Ramakant allegedly fired a .315-bore country-made pistol at Rajesh Tiwari, causing a fatal firearm injury to his neck.

The post-mortem attributed death to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the firearm injury.

The prosecution relied principally on the ocular testimony of Ashok Kumar (PW-1) and Nanhu Tiwari (PW-2), medical evidence, recovery of firearms and cartridges, and ballistic evidence connecting the fired cartridge with the pistol recovered from Ramakant.

The Trial Court convicted Ramakant under Sections 302, 307 and 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, while acquitting Chandrakant, Saroj and Kaushal Kishore.

Ramakant challenged his conviction, and the complainant appealed against the acquittal of the other accused.

1. Whether the evidence of the related eyewitnesses, read with the medical, recovery and ballistic evidence, proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ramakant caused the fatal firearm injury to Rajesh?

2. Whether the recovery of the .315-bore pistol and fired cartridge from Ramakant was reliable despite the absence of independent recovery witnesses?

3. Whether Ramakant established his plea of alibi through the testimony of DW-1 and the medical documents produced in defence?

4. Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part I IPC by applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?

5. Whether the acquittal of Chandrakant, Saroj and Kaushal Kishore was perverse or otherwise liable to be interfered with in an appeal against acquittal, particularly on the basis of common intention under Section 34 IPC?

The Court applied Sections 302, 307, 506 and 34 IPC, Section 30 of the Arms Act and the relevant provisions of the Arms Act concerning unlawful possession and use of firearms.

A related witness is not inherently unreliable; his evidence must be scrutinised cautiously, but may be relied upon if it is natural, trustworthy and consistent on material particulars, as recognised in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra and Leela Ram v. State of Haryana.

Independent corroboration of a police recovery is a rule of prudence and not an absolute legal requirement, as explained in Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka, Kalpnath Rai v. State and Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan.

A plea of alibi under Section 11 of the Evidence Act must be established by cogent evidence that completely excludes the accused’s presence at the scene, as held in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and reiterated in Kamal Prasad v. State of Chhattisgarh.

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC requires the cumulative existence of a sudden fight, absence of premeditation, heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and absence of undue advantage or cruel or unusual conduct.

In an appeal against acquittal, appellate interference is justified only where the trial court’s view is perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly unreasonable; where two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused ordinarily prevails.

The Court found the core testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 consistent in attributing the fatal shot to Ramakant, despite discrepancies regarding the sequence and number of shots.

Their evidence was considered natural because they were present in connection with the land dispute and was corroborated by the post-mortem evidence establishing a single fatal firearm injury.

The ballistic report further connected the fired cartridge with the .315-bore pistol recovered from Ramakant, materially strengthening the prosecution case.

The absence of independent recovery witnesses did not invalidate the recovery because the police evidence was found reliable and the recovery had scientific corroboration.

The alibi failed because DW-1 had not witnessed the firing, the medical documents did not establish Ramakant’s presence at the hospital at the relevant time, and no doctor or hospital official was examined.

Exception 4 was held inapplicable because the accused allegedly left the field, returned home, armed himself and came back after an interval of nearly two hours; this interruption demonstrated sufficient opportunity for reflection, and firing a deadly weapon at the deceased’s neck constituted taking undue advantage.

Conversely, the evidence against the acquitted accused was materially weaker: their recoveries lacked independent corroboration and ballistic linkage, the licensed gun was recovered from premises associated with Ramakant rather than from Chandrakant, and common intention was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also dismissed the complainant’s appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and affirmed the acquittal of Chandrakant Tiwari, Saroj Tiwari and Kaushal Kishore Tiwari, holding that the acquittal represented a plausible view of the evidence and disclosed no perversity or manifest illegality.

The connected application was dismissed as not pressed, and the trial court records were directed to be transmitted for compliance.