Sudden, unpremeditated killing without specific intent to cause death attracts Section 304 Part II IPC.

On July 13, 2019, the deceased, Sanjeev Pandey, intervened in a domestic quarrel between the appellant and his wife

After the deceased returned to his own room, the appellant followed him while armed with a kitchen knife

During the ensuing altercation, the deceased struck the appellant on the head with a danda (wooden stick)

The appellant subsequently stabbed the deceased in the chest and thigh, resulting in the victim's death due to hemorrhagic shock from a heart injury

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC (Murder) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life

The appellant challenged the conviction, contending the act occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation

Whether the appellant’s act of stabbing the deceased amounts to murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC

Whether the case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, considering the incident was preceded by a sudden quarrel and an assault by the deceased

The court applied the definitions of "Culpable Homicide" under Section 299 IPC and "Murder" under Section 300 IPC

It specifically scrutinized Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) and Exception 4 (sudden fight in the heat of passion) of Section 300 IPC

The court relied on Rampal Singh v. State of U.P., which distinguishes the three degrees of culpable homicide and the distinction between "intention" and "knowledge"

It further cited Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh regarding the "sustained provocation" and "reasonable man" tests and Mangesh v. State of Maharashtra regarding the assessment of intention based on the force and nature of injuries

The court found that while the appellant caused the fatal injuries, the incident lacked the premeditation required for murder

The court emphasized that the deceased had initiated the physical confrontation by striking the appellant on the head with a danda

Applying the principles from Rampal Singh, the court observed that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment in a "heat of passion" following the deceased’s intervention in the appellant's domestic dispute

Furthermore, citing Mangesh, the court noted that the use of a domestic kitchen knife in the context of a sudden struggle indicated a lack of specific intent to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death

However, the court held that by wielding a knife and stabbing the deceased in a vital area, the appellant possessed the "knowledge" that his act was likely to cause death, thereby satisfying the criteria for Section 304 Part II IPC rather than Section 302 IPC

The court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC

Considering the appellant had already served more than seven years of imprisonment (including remissions), the court modified the sentence to the period already undergone and directed his immediate release, provided he was not required in any other case

The fine imposed by the Trial Court was sustained