Homicidal death during a sudden, unpremeditated dispute attracts Section 304 Part I, not Section 302.

On 7 October 2019, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Ronharam Rohidas proceeded towards a field carrying a tangi, sickle and rope.

The prosecution alleged that appellants Suritram and Muritram, armed with a lathi, iron rod and tangi, assaulted him on the head near the field of Raghunath Rohidas, causing fatal head injuries.

When Gorelal Rohidas intervened, the appellants allegedly assaulted him as well, causing simple injuries.

The post-mortem disclosed a cut injury, skull fracture and intracranial haemorrhage; the medical officer opined that the death was homicidal and resulted from head and brain injuries.

The First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, convicted both appellants under Sections 302/34 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder and six months’ rigorous imprisonment for voluntarily causing hurt, with the sentences to run concurrently.

Whether the appellants’ conviction under Sections 302/34 of the IPC should be sustained, or whether the homicidal act was covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and therefore amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC?

Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC for causing simple hurt to Gorelal Rohidas warranted interference?

The Court applied Sections 302, 304 Part I, 323 and 34 of the IPC, together with Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Exception 4 applies where the death is caused without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly or unusually.

Relying on Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, the Court recognised that a culpable homicide committed during a sudden quarrel may fall under Section 304 Part I where the offender acted with intention but without the circumstances constituting murder.

Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana was relied upon for the relevant sentencing factors, including motive, premeditation, intention or knowledge, nature of the weapon and injury, and the accused’s conduct.

State v. Sanjeev Nanda and Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh distinguish Section 304 Part I, involving intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, from Section 304 Part II, involving knowledge without such intention.

Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) reaffirmed the four cumulative requirements of Exception 4.

The Court found that the eyewitness testimony consistently established the presence and participation of both appellants, while the medical evidence corroborated the infliction of a fatal head injury and the homicidal nature of the death.

The testimony of injured witness Gorelal, supported by his medical examination, independently established that the appellants caused simple hurt to him during the occurrence.

However, regarding the offence against Ronharam, the Court held that the existing land dispute did not, by itself, prove a premeditated design to commit murder.

It further found no clear evidence that the appellants repeatedly assaulted the deceased after he had fallen or otherwise acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Applying Exception 4, the Court treated the occurrence as arising in the heat of the moment during a sudden altercation, without established premeditation or undue advantage.

Since the appellants’ participation and responsibility for the homicidal death were proved, but the case fell within Exception 4, the conviction was altered from Section 302/34 to Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.

The conviction under Section 323 IPC was maintained because it was supported by the injured witness’s evidence and medical corroboration.

The conviction of both appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC was set aside and altered to Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.

Each appellant was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, with three months’ further rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

Their conviction under Section 323 IPC and the corresponding sentence were maintained.

Both sentences were directed to run concurrently, and the period already undergone in custody was ordered to be set off in accordance with law.