Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Assault resulting in death – Prosecution case was that the appellant caused six injuries to deceased by attacking him with a knife on the fateful night in the presence of their friends who had gathered at the house of accused no.2 for celebrating a drink party arranged at the behest of the deceased – Deceased succumbed to the injuries caused by the appellant – Conviction by trial court under s.304 Part II – High Court convicted appellant-accused under s.302 – On appeal, held: Evidence on record proved sudden physical fight between the appellant and the deceased, in which the appellant, in heat of passion, gave six knife blows to the deceased on different parts of his body – There was no pre-mediation and the act done by the appellant was in the heat of passion without the appellant taking any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner – The number of wounds caused by the appellant by itself cannot be a decisive factor – High Court committed manifest error in being influenced by the said fact – The fact that the appellant used weapon such as knife, is also not a decisive factor to attract s.302 – It is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Neither the use of a knife in the commission of offence nor the factum of multiple injuries given by the appellant would deny the appellant of the benefit of Exception
4 of s.300 – As regards sentence, the trial court awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years only for offence under s.304 Part-II and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year – Nature of offence and the trivial reason for which the appellant got enraged and assaulted the deceased, that too by a knife and also gave multiple blows, does not warrant a light punishment – In the fact situation and ends of justice, the sentence period should not be less than 10 years imprisonment with fine.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The evidence clearly establishes that the appellant assaulted the deceased without any premeditation. The whole incident took place suddenly and, in the heat of passion a sudden quarrel started as the deceased, while smoking, blew smoke on the face of the appellant. Resultantly, the appellant got enraged. He told him that he was senior in age and thus should not smoke in his presence much less blow the smoke towards him. Then a sudden physical fight started between them, in which the appellant, in heat of passion, gave six knife blows to the deceased on different parts of his body. Soon after assaulting the deceased by knife, when the appellant realised that the deceased has been badly injured, he offered him water and took him to the hospital along with his other friends. He was in the hospital till the deceased succumbed to the injuries. He had also informed the father of the deceased on telephone and called him to the hospital. Further, when the deceased was taken to the hospital, the doctors did not provide him immediate treatment but insisted on calling his father. This can be culled out from the evidence of PW-11 and PW-12, who were eye-witnesses and also present throughout and until the last rites of the deceased were performed. The events clearly show that the appellant had no intention to cause the death of the deceased. [Paras 9, 10][251B-C, D-F]
1.2 It is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder inasmuch as the incident happened on account of sudden fight between the friends who had gathered for a drink party arranged at the behest of the deceased. The number of wounds caused by the appellant, it is a well established position, by itself cannot be a decisive factor. The High Court committed manifest error in being influenced by the said fact. What is relevant is that the occurrence was sudden and not premeditated and the offender acted in the heat of passion. The evidence supports the case of the appellant in this behalf. The fact that the appellant used weapon such as knife, is also not a decisive factor to attract Section 302 of IPC. Neither the factum of use of knife by the appellant during the assault nor the multiple blows (six) given by the appellant can be the sole basis to deny the appellant of the benefit available under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. The Court is obliged to take an overall view of the matter on the basis of the established facts. [Paras 12, 14][252-A-C; 254-C]
Surain Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 796 – relied on.
2. The Trial Court awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years only for offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. For that no special reason was recorded by the Trial Court. Considering the nature of offence and the trivial reason for which the appellant got enraged and assaulted the deceased, that too by a knife and also gave multiple blows, does not warrant a light punishment. In the fact situation of the present case, the sentence period should not be less than 10 years imprisonment with fine. That would meet the ends of justice. [Paras 15, 16][254-D-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.