Murder conviction converted to Section 304 Part-I as sudden fight over property attracts Exception 4.

The deceased, Musa Alam, and his brother-in-law, Mainul Haque, were ploughing leased land on 18/04/2007 when they were allegedly attacked by Fazar Ali and seven others with daos and lathis

Musa Ali died from a head injury sustained during the clash

Initially, the Trial Court convicted Fazar Ali under Section 304 Part-II IPC while acquitting six others

Following a remand by the High Court for the examination of an injured witness (who eventually could not be traced), the Trial Court delivered a fresh judgment in 2023, enhancing Fazar Ali’s conviction to Section 302 IPC while maintaining the acquittal of the co-accused

Fazar Ali appealed his conviction, while the informant (Abul Basar) appealed against the acquittal of the six co-accused

1. Whether the act of the accused, Fazar Ali, in causing the death of the deceased constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, given the context of a sudden land dispute

2. Whether the six co-accused shared a common object with Fazar Ali to murder the deceased, thereby attracting vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC

3. Whether an Appellate Court should interfere with the Trial Court’s order of acquittal in the absence of patent perversity

The court primarily applied Section 300 (Murder), Section 302 (Punishment for Murder), and Exception 4 to Section 300 (Sudden fight) of the IPC

It utilized Section 149 IPC regarding unlawful assembly and common object

The court relied on Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh to distinguish between murder and culpable homicide

Nandalal v. State of Maharashtra regarding the proportionality of weapons in sudden fights

It further applied principles from Zainul v. State of Bihar and Haribhau v. State of Maharashtra to determine that mere presence at a scene does not establish membership in an unlawful assembly

Regarding acquittals, the court followed H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, which mandates that an acquittal should not be overturned if the Trial Court’s view is a possible one

The Court observed that the incident arose from a long-standing dispute over cultivable land belonging to the Sharma brothers

Evidence showed that the clash was a mutual fight; Fazar Ali’s wife and son were also seriously injured and hospitalized, indicating both parties were aggressors to some degree

The Court determined that the attack was unpremeditated and occurred during a sudden quarrel, thus attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC

Although Fazar Ali used a deadly weapon (dao), the context of the land dispute and injuries to his own family suggested a lack of premeditated murder

Regarding the co-accused, the Court found no evidence of a prior meeting of minds or a shared common object to kill

Their presence was deemed incidental or subsequent to the initial altercation, and the testimonies linking them to the assault were inconsistent or unsupported by medical evidence

It held that Fazar Ali was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rather than murder, because the incident fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC

The conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC, and Fazar Ali was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000

The acquittal of the six co-accused was upheld, as the prosecution failed to prove a shared common object or specific overt acts beyond a reasonable doubt