JCB Operator’s Repeated Bucket Attack Defeats Sudden-Fight Plea As Madras HC Cuts His 304-I Sentence To 5 Years

On 10 October 2016, following a quarrel at a gypsum yard, the appellant, who was operating a JCB, lifted the deceased and another person in its bucket.

After the other person escaped, the appellant threw the deceased down and repeatedly struck him with the bucket, causing fatal injuries.

The trial court acquitted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC but convicted him under Section 304 IPC and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹1,000, and six months’ simple imprisonment in default.

In appeal, the appellant challenged the classification of the offence and sought a reduction in sentence.

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies where culpable homicide is committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner; these requirements are cumulative.

Under Section 304 Part I IPC, the relevant intention is to cause bodily injury likely to cause death; Part II applies where the accused has the requisite knowledge but lacks that intention.

In sentencing, the court must balance the offence’s gravity and aggravating circumstances against relevant mitigating circumstances.

The judgment identifies no specific precedents.

The court accepted that the occurrence followed a quarrel and alleged verbal abuse, but held that those circumstances did not satisfy Exception 4 because the appellant repeatedly used a heavy JCB bucket against the deceased, including after throwing him down.

The nature and repetition of the blows, the injuries to vital parts, and the appellant’s control over the machine showed a cruel or unusual assault and an intention to cause injuries likely to result in death, supporting Section 304 Part I rather than Part II.

On sentence, the court considered the appellant’s age, lack of prior criminal antecedents, family responsibility, and injuries sustained after the occurrence, and found ten years’ imprisonment excessive.

It confirmed the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC but reduced the rigorous-imprisonment term from ten years to five years.

The fine, default sentence, and set-off under Section 428 CrPC remained unchanged; the appeal was partly allowed.