Penal Code, 1860: s.304 Part I – Appeal by complainant challenging the impugned order whereby High Court partly allowed the appeal of original accused no.1-respondent no.2 and converted his conviction from s.302 to s.304 Part I – Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, complainant’s mother made grievance to respondent no.2 regarding the bad behaviour of his nephewaccused no.2 – At that time, accused no.3 and 4 were also present there – All the accused persons started fighting with her – When the accused were asked to go away from there, accused no.2 to 4 exhorted respondent no.2 to fire at her – Respondent no.2 fired with his country made pistol which resulted in her death – Trial Court convicted respondent no.2 u/s.302 as the specific role of firing was attributed to him while other 3 accused were acquitted – High Court partly allowed the appeal of respondent no.2 holding that the case fell under Exception 4 to s.300 and converted conviction to s.304 Part I on the grounds that it was not a planned crime; that there was no prior intention; and that it took place in the heat of passion and in the spur of the moment – Aggrieved complainant filed instant appeal – Held: None of the persons from the complainant side, including the deceased, was having any weapon – There was no further grave and sudden provocation by the deceased which led to the accused to fire on her and, that too, from a very close range – By the accused firing from a close range, the accused was supposed to know that it was so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death – In the facts and circumstances of the case, High Court materially erred in applying Exception 4 to s.300 – The judgment passed by trial court convicting respondent No. 2 u/s.302 is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The material/evidence on record, the deposition of the original complainant and the case of the prosecution proved that the incident in question took place half an hour after there was abusive language used by the cousin of original accused No. 1 with the deceased. The deceased made a grievance to accused No. 1-respondent No.2 with respect to the abusive language used by accused No.2 (cousin of original accused No. 1) and, in that moment, respondent No. 2 started abusing. At that time, the deceased and others told them not to use abusive words in future and told them to go away. Respondent No. 2 told the deceased and others not to challenge him and he said “Do you not know that I have been convicted, now I do not have any kind of fear”. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 fired from close range. None of the persons from the complainant side, including the deceased, was having any weapon. There was no further grave and sudden provocation by the deceased which led the accused to fire at the deceased and, that too, from a very close range. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC by holding that it was not a planned crime and there was no prior intention and it took place in the heat of passion and in the spur of the moment. In view of the material/evidence on record, the case fell under clause fourthly to Section 300 IPC and, therefore, the Trial Court was right in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. [Paras 8.1, 8.5, 8.6, 9] [190-C-G; 191D-E] Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 3 SCC 330 – referred to.
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.