Penal Code, 1860 – Exception 4 to s.300 – Death caused in sudden fight without premeditation – Prosecution case was that victim was surrounded by the appellant-accused and other accused persons – In a verbal quarrel between the victim and the appellantaccused, a farsi blow on the right side of skull near ear of the victim was inflicted by the accused-appellant – It was alleged that other accused had also inflicted injuries – Victim died – Trial Court convicted the appellant-accused u/s.302 and other accused u/s.302 r/w. s.149, and sentenced all of them to life imprisonment – High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellantaccused, however, acquitted all other accused – On appeal, held: The injuries inflicted on the deceased was result of a sudden fight between him and the accused party – There was no premeditation – Appellant-accused had caused one injury to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicated that the appellant had not taken undue advantage of the deceased – The manner, the occurrence and the injury inflicted on deceased attracted exception 4 to s.300 – Thus, the conviction of the appellant modified to s.304-I IPC and sentenced reduced to already undergone.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PW-6 an injured eye witness, who has deposed about quarrel between the deceased and the accused party. PW-6 has also spoken about the infliction of farsi blow by the appellant on the right side of the head near the ear of the deceased. When PW-6 tried to rescue the deceased, PW-6 also sustained injuries on his right hand. PW-6 was also injured in the occurrence is supported by the medical evidence and evidence of PW-2-Doctor. PW-6 being injured eye witness, his evidence stands on higher footing. Presence of injuries on the person of PW-6 lends assurance to his testimony. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of injured eye witness(PW-6). [Para 6] [606-F-H; 607A]
2. The fourth exception to Section 300 IPC deals with death committed in sudden fight without premeditation. The sudden fight implies the absence of premeditation. In the instant case, as the injuries inflicted on the deceased was in the sudden fight between the deceased and the accused party. There was no premeditation. One injury was caused to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicates that the appellant has not taken undue advantage of the deceased. The manner the occurrence and the injury inflicted on the deceased attract Exception 4 to Section 300. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant is modified under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. [Para 7] [607-C-E]
Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259: [2011] 12 SCR 718 – 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.