Modified Conviction: Single Blow During Sudden Quarrel Without Premeditation Attracts Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

The appellant, a former tailor at the complainant’s boutique, was dismissed three months prior to the incident due to allegations of theft.

On July 9, 2014, at approximately 9:00 PM, the appellant allegedly smashed the windshield of the complainant’s scooter. When the deceased (Gurpreet Singh Sethi) and witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) intervened, a verbal altercation and "dhakka-mukki" (scuffle) ensued for about two minutes.

During this sudden fight, the appellant used a pair of scissors to stab P.W.-2 (causing simple injuries) and then inflicted a single fatal stab wound to the left chest of the deceased.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

The appellant challenged the conviction, seeking a reduction to Section 304 IPC.

1. Whether the ocular testimony of related/injured witnesses (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) is sufficient for conviction despite the non-examination of independent public witnesses.

2. Whether the act of inflicting a single blow with scissors during a sudden quarrel attracts Section 302 IPC (Murder) or falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder).

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC provides that culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.

Standard for injured witness credibility: The testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable and is accorded a special status in law (State of U.P. v. Naresh (2011)).

Principle on quality of evidence: The quality of evidence prevails over the quantity of witnesses (Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P. (2022)).

Single Blow Theory: The nature of the offence depends on the weapon used and the manner of infliction (Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000)).

The Court affirmed the reliability of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 as "stamped witnesses" whose presence was proven by their own injuries.

The evidence showed the incident was not premeditated; it began with vandalism and escalated into a "sudden fight" involving fisting and pushing for two minutes.

The Court observed that the appellant did not bring the scissors specifically to kill, as he initially used bricks to break glass and beat the deceased with his hands.

Landing the first blow on P.W.-2 (mother-in-law) with simple consequences, followed by a single blow to the deceased’s vital part, indicated a lack of specific intent to murder but suggested knowledge that the injury was likely to cause death.

The Court concluded the appellant did not take "undue advantage" such as repeat blows, thus satisfying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

The Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, and reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to 12 years of Rigorous Imprisonment.