Murder conviction modified to Section 304 Part II as sudden quarrel assault lacked premeditated intent.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Bokha alias Ramhulas

On March 27, 2020, following a dispute regarding the return of paddy, the appellant allegedly assaulted the deceased with an axe (tangi) in the courtyard of the deceased’s house

The prosecution case relied on the testimony of Rajkunwar (PW-1), who claimed to be an eye-witness

The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment

The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the incident was not premeditated, occurred during a sudden quarrel, and lacked the requisite intention for murder

1. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature

2. Whether the prosecution established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as the perpetrator of the crime

3. Whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, necessitating a modification of the conviction to Section 304 IPC

The court primarily applied Section 300 (Exception 4) and Section 304 Part II of the IPC regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder

It relied on the distinction between "intention" and "knowledge" as elucidated in Anbazhagan v. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police (2023 INSC 632), where acts done with knowledge of likely consequences but without intention to cause death fall under Section 304 Part II

It further applied the principle from Velthepu Srinivas v. State of A.P. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 107), which classifies assaults occurring in the heat of passion without premeditation as culpable homicide rather than murder

The court affirmed the homicidal nature of death based on the medical testimony of Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma (PW-5), who identified extensive cranial trauma and a 27 cm temporo-parietal fracture

The court found the prosecution's ocular evidence insufficient to sustain a murder conviction. The sole eye-witness, PW-1, admitted in cross-examination that visibility was obstructed by a wooden fence and her testimony was based partly on assumption

The court noted that the recovery of the weapon was technically flawed, as seizure witnesses did not understand the memorandum and the Investigating Officer admitted no blood was visible on the axe at the time of seizure

The court reasoned that while the appellant was responsible for the fatal blow, the incident arose from a sudden quarrel over paddy without premeditation

Consequently, the court found that the appellant possessed the "knowledge" that his act was likely to cause death, but the "intention" to murder was not established

The court held that the offense was a homicide committed without premeditation in the heat of passion

The appellant’s sentence was modified from life imprisonment to seven years of rigorous imprisonment