Single Fatal Blow Inflicted Without Premeditation During Sudden Fight Attracts Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the act of stabbing the deceased amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder)

The court held

The Court set aside the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and modified it to a conviction under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC

It also directed

The sentence of life imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone (over 7 years)

The fine and compensation orders were upheld, and the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith

01Facts

On August 29, 2012, an altercation occurred at a bus stand in Lal Kuan between Pradeep and the complainant (PW-1) over a cigarette demand

p. 3

Pradeep left the spot, fetched a kitchen knife from a nearby dhaba, and returned

p. 3, 6

A scuffle ensued involving the complainant and the deceased (Neeraj), who had intervened

p. 3, 19

The complainant alleged that Sanjay (Pradeep’s brother) held the deceased while Pradeep inflicted a single fatal stab wound to Neeraj's chest

pp. 3-4

The Trial Court convicted both appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to rigorous life imprisonment

p. 2

The appellants appealed on the grounds that the incident was a sudden fight without premeditation and that the evidence against Sanjay was contradictory

pp. 9-14

02Issues

i.1. Whether the act of stabbing the deceased amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder)

¶ 32

ii.2. Whether the appellant Sanjay shared a common intention with Pradeep to cause the death of the deceased under Section 34 IPC

¶ 37-38

03Law Applied

The Court primarily applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which reduces murder to culpable homicide if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, provided the offender takes no undue advantage

¶ 32

It further applied Section 304 Part II of the IPC for acts done with knowledge but without the specific intention to cause death

¶ 40

Regarding common intention, the Court applied Section 34 IPC and relied on Chellappa v. State, which requires proof of a shared prior mind rather than mere presence

¶ 37

It also followed Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh to distinguish the stages of determining "murder" versus "culpable homicide"

¶ 41

Provisions in the judgment · 15 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415

Indian Penal Code, 1860 12 provisions

Section 34 Section 279 Section 299 Section 300 Section 301 Section 302 Section 304 Section 337 Section 338 Section 382 Section 392 Section 471

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 173 Section 313

04Reasoning

The Court found that the incident lacked premeditation because the quarrel arose spontaneously over a cigarette; the weapon was a kitchen knife grabbed from a nearby table in the heat of the moment, not brought to the scene

¶ 33

The presence of injuries on Pradeep corroborated a "sudden fight" involving mutual blows

¶ 34

The Court determined that no "undue advantage" was taken as only a single blow was struck during a scuffle where the deceased was an intervenor rather than the original target

¶ 35-36, 42

Regarding Sanjay, the Court noted that independent witnesses (PW-5 and PW-8) contradicted the complainant, stating Sanjay either arrived after the stabbing or was at a distance, thus failing to prove he "held" the deceased or shared a common intention to kill

¶ 38

Therefore, the Court concluded the act was culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II

¶ 40