Knowledge without intent to cause death supports culpable homicide under Section 304(II), not murder.

A land dispute led to a sudden fight between the complainant’s family and the accused.

During the occurrence, Shakeel Ahmad Hajam struck Gull Lone on the head with the blunt side of an axe; Lone later died.

The Sessions Court acquitted several accused, including of the charge under Section 302 RPC, but convicted Shakeel under Sections 304 Part II and 447 RPC and Khurshid under Sections 325 and 447 RPC.

Shakeel and Khurshid appealed their convictions and sentences, while the State appealed against the acquittals, including the acquittal of the convicted accused under Section 302 RPC.

Whether Shakeel’s act of inflicting a single axe blow with its blunt side, in the circumstances of the sudden fight, amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II RPC.

Whether the related witnesses’ evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions, and whether the accused’s post-occurrence conduct established an intention to cause death.

Whether the State had established grounds to interfere with the acquittals, including the acquittal of the convicted accused under Section 302 RPC.

Sections 300 and 304 RPC distinguish murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Section 304 Part II applies where the accused had knowledge that the act was likely to cause death but lacked an intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.

Exception 4 to Section 300 RPC provides that culpable homicide is not murder where it occurs without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly or unusually.

The Court also applied the principle that related witnesses are not to be disbelieved merely because of their relationship to the victim; their evidence must be carefully scrutinized for credibility, as stated in Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P., (2021) 13 SCC 716, and State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa, (2006) 4 SCC 512.

An acquittal is not to be disturbed where the evidence permits two views, given the reinforced presumption of innocence.

The Court accepted the Trial Court’s factual findings, which the defence did not materially dispute.

The assault arose from a land dispute and sudden scuffle; Shakeel inflicted one blow with the blunt side of the axe, did not repeat it, and did not use the weapon’s sharp edge.

The medical evidence described a single internal head injury, without skull fracture or a laceration.

Taken together, these circumstances supported knowledge that the blow could cause death, but did not establish the requisite intention for murder; the occurrence therefore fell within culpable homicide not amounting to murder and supported conviction under Section 304 Part II RPC.

The related witnesses’ evidence was not disqualified by their relationship and was accepted after scrutiny.

Although witnesses described resistance to moving the deceased to hospital, the evidence did not establish that it caused a treatment delay leading to death or independently proved an intention to kill.

The Court found no basis to disturb the acquittals.

It upheld Shakeel’s convictions under Sections 304 Part II and 447 RPC and Khurshid’s convictions under Sections 325 and 447 RPC, together with the sentences imposed by the Trial Court.

It also declined to interfere with the acquittals, including the acquittal under Section 302 RPC.