Homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight justifies conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.

On May 19, 2021, a quarrel erupted at a marriage party after the appellant allegedly misbehaved with a girl named Jaba, leading to a physical altercation between the appellant and his wife

Later that night, when the deceased (Sibu Prasad Brahma) and PW-4 (Ashok Boro) intervened to settle the matter, the appellant stabbed the deceased in the chest and injured PW-4 with a folding knife

The deceased died at the hospital due to a penetrating wound to the left lung and major vessels

The appellant was apprehended at Runikhata, approximately 50-60 km from the scene, where the weapon was seized

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 304 Part II and 324 of the IPC, sentencing him to 10 years and 3 years of Rigorous Imprisonment, respectively

The appellant challenged this conviction on grounds of lack of intent, poor visibility at the scene, and non-examination of vital witnesses

1. Whether the ocular evidence provided by the eye-witnesses and the injured witness (PW-4) was reliable and corroborated by medical evidence

2. Whether the act of the appellant fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, thereby warranting a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

The court primarily applied Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) of the IPC

It analyzed Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which stipulates that culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and without taking undue advantage

The court relied on Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010), which establishes that the testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable due to their "built-in guarantee" of presence at the scene

It also cited Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala (2023) regarding the application of Exception 4 in the absence of premeditation

The court found that the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4, and PW-5 were consistent and established the appellant’s presence and actions at the scene

It highlighted that PW-4, as an injured witness, occupied a "higher pedestal" of credibility, and his injury was corroborated by medical testimony (PW-7)

The court dismissed the defense’s argument regarding dark conditions, noting that light was available via an inverter

Regarding the nature of the offense, the court observed that there was no previous enmity or premeditated plan to kill the deceased; the stabbing occurred during a sudden fight in a "heat of passion"

Because the appellant did not act in an unusually cruel manner or take undue advantage, the court agreed with the Trial Court’s decision to apply Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, reducing the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder

It held that the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt under Sections 304 Part II and 324 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt

The sentence of 10 years R.I. for culpable homicide and 3 years R.I. for causing hurt with a sharp weapon was affirmed