Sudden quarrel without premeditation attracts Exception 4, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part I.

On 17 April 2019, following an altercation concerning pork/barha meat, the appellants allegedly dragged Shyamlal Rathiya from his house and assaulted him with bamboo sticks, fists, kicks and stones.

Shyamlal was treated at various hospitals and died on 26 April 2019. The post-mortem disclosed multiple head injuries, skull fractures, intracranial blood clots and other injuries; the injuries were opined to have been caused by a hard and blunt object and to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

A bamboo stick was seized from Ratthuram pursuant to the investigation, and medical evidence indicated that the injuries could have been caused by it.

The Additional Sessions Judge convicted both appellants under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine.

The appellants challenged the conviction under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, caused Shyamlal’s death so as to attract Sections 302 read with 34 IPC.

Whether the occurrence was covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC—namely, whether it resulted from a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the appellants taking undue advantage or acting cruelly—thereby warranting conversion of the conviction to Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court applied Sections 302 and 34 IPC concerning murder and acts done in furtherance of common intention, and Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which applies where death is caused in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.

Section 304 Part I IPC applies where the act amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and is accompanied by intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; Section 304 Part II applies where there is only knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Relying on Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002 (3) SCC 327, Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, 2009 (15) SCC 635, State v. Sanjeev Nanda, 2012 (8) SCC 450, Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2017 (3) SCC 247, and Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 (6) SCC 122, the Court held that the existence of a sudden quarrel, absence of premeditation, nature of the weapon, manner of assault, intention or knowledge, and whether undue advantage was taken are material considerations in distinguishing murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The Court accepted the consistent testimony of the eyewitnesses, finding that their relationship with the deceased did not by itself render their evidence unreliable.

Their evidence was corroborated by the post-mortem and treatment records, which established that Shyamlal died from serious head injuries caused by a hard and blunt object.

The seizure of the bamboo stick from Ratthuram and the medical opinion that the injuries could have been caused by it provided further corroboration, although the conviction did not depend solely on the recovery evidence.

However, the Court found no evidence of prior enmity, premeditation, or a predetermined intention to kill. The incident arose suddenly from an altercation over meat; the appellants had not come armed with a deadly weapon, and the deceased survived for several days before dying during treatment.

Nevertheless, repeated blows with a bamboo stick on the head demonstrated knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. Since the circumstances satisfied all four requirements of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the case fell within culpable homicide not amounting to murder, though the requisite intention for Section 304 Part I was inferred from the nature and manner of the assault.

Each appellant was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a further two months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

As the appellants were already in custody, they were directed to serve the remaining sentence.

The Registry was directed to communicate the judgment to the concerned jail superintendent and transmit the judgment and original record to the trial court for compliance.