Sudden, unpremeditated assault causing death attracts Section 304 Part II, not Section 302 IPC.

On 21 April 2017, during a sudden altercation concerning liquor, the appellant Somnath allegedly struck Dayal Singh on the head with a piece of stone flooring and thereafter assaulted him with a wooden stick.

Dayal Singh sustained serious head injuries, remained under treatment, and died on 29 April 2017.

The appellant was arrested, and the alleged weapons and CCTV footage were seized during investigation.

He was initially prosecuted under Sections 294 and 307 IPC; following the deceased’s death, the charge was altered to Section 302 IPC.

The Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000, while acquitting him under Section 294 IPC.

The appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the incident arose from a sudden quarrel without premeditation and, at most, constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the fatal injuries resulting in Dayal Singh’s death

Whether the appellant’s act constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, in light of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC

What sentence should be imposed upon alteration of the conviction, if any

The Court applied Sections 299, 300 and 304 Part II IPC.

Murder under Section 300 requires, among other alternatives, an intention to cause death or an intention to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, whereas Section 304 Part II applies where the accused acts with knowledge that death is likely but without the requisite intention.

Exception 4 to Section 300 excludes culpable homicide from murder where death is caused in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly.

The Court relied on Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2017 SC 471; Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2017 SC 1150; Arumugam v. State, (2008) 15 SCC 590; Prabhakar Vithal Gholve v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2016 SC 2292; and Sikandar Ali v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2017 SC 2614, for the principles governing sudden quarrels, weapons of opportunity, and the distinction between Sections 302 and 304 Part II IPC.

The Court accepted the medical evidence establishing that Dayal Singh died from the head injuries inflicted during the assault and found the testimony of eyewitnesses Harish and Narmada Bai reliable regarding the appellant’s participation.

However, it found no prior enmity or premeditation; the quarrel arose suddenly over liquor, and the appellant used a stone piece and wooden stick found at the spot rather than weapons carried in advance.

The evidence indicated one blow with the stone piece followed by an assault with the stick, without a prolonged or repeated attack, while the deceased was also under the influence of alcohol.

Applying Exception 4 to Section 300, the Court held that the circumstances established knowledge that striking the head with a hard object was likely to cause death, but did not establish an intention to cause death or the particular bodily injury contemplated by Section 300.

The case therefore fell within Section 304 Part II IPC.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and substituted with a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.

The sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, while the fine of ₹10,000 was maintained.

In default of payment, the appellant was directed to undergo 400 days’ additional simple imprisonment; any realised fine was directed to be paid as compensation to the deceased’s legal heirs.

The period already undergone was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., and the appellant was to be released upon completion of the modified sentence, unless required in another case.