Sudden quarrel without premeditation attracts Exception 4, but deep intentional blows warrant Section 304(I).

The appellant and deceased Tukaram Kavale worked on the same fishing boat. A dispute arose after the boat stopped functioning due to an alleged mistake concerning the cleaning and use of chemical cans, creating a risk to the appellant’s employment.

On the night of 3–4 November 2021, a quarrel occurred near the appellant’s hut, during which the appellant assaulted Tukaram with a knife. Police Patil Damodar Govari (PW 8) witnessed the assault and later stated that the appellant made an extra-judicial confession explaining the dispute. Tukaram sustained four sharp-force injuries, including two deep penetrating injuries that punctured his lungs, and died from haemorrhagic shock.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine.

In appeal, the appellant accepted the occurrence and the evidence of PW 8 but contended that the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and that the conviction should be altered to Part II of Section 304 IPC.

Whether the appellant’s act constituted murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

If the offence fell under Section 304 IPC, whether it was punishable under Part I, involving intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, or Part II, involving knowledge without such intention.

What sentence would meet the ends of justice after alteration of the conviction.

The Court applied Section 300 IPC, particularly Exception 4, under which culpable homicide is not murder when committed 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 explanation makes it immaterial which party provoked the quarrel or made the first assault.

Section 304 IPC distinguishes between culpable homicide committed with the intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, punishable under Part I, and an act committed with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without that intention, punishable under Part II.

Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits set-off of the period of pre-trial detention against the sentence imposed.

The Court found that the evidence of the alleged earlier threats given by PW 1 was not corroborated by PW 4, and that PW 8 had not witnessed the beginning or genesis of the incident.

Since the deceased had gone to the appellant’s hut around midnight and the assault appeared to have followed a sudden quarrel, the Court held that there was insufficient proof of premeditation or prior preparation. The circumstances therefore satisfied Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

However, the medical evidence established two deep knife injuries, one to the upper chest and another to the back, both penetrating the lungs. The depth and location of these injuries demonstrated that the appellant intended to cause bodily injuries likely to cause death, although the case did not amount to murder because of the sudden-fight circumstances.

Accordingly, the offence fell under Part I, rather than Part II, of Section 304 IPC.

He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years; the fine of Rs. 500 and the default sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment remained unchanged.

The appellant was granted set-off under Section 428 CrPC, and the connected interim application was disposed of.