Penal Code, 1860 – s.302/34 or s.304 Part II – Conviction under – Prosecution case that there was exchange of abuse between the two parties over expenses of the construction of wall – Victim and his brother tried to pacify the parties – However, they were not able to control the situation – Appellant, accused No.2 & 3 caused injuries to the victim – Victim died – Trial court convicted all three accused u/s.302/34 of IPC – High Court held that only appellant caused fatal injuries to the victim and affirmed his conviction and acquitted accused No.2 & 3 – Appellant contended that incident occurred in a sudden quarrel and after he was attacked by PW-1 – In a sudden fight, appellant went to his house and came back and attacked the victim – Appellant further contended that he had no intention to commit murder of victim, hence the case falls within Exception 4 to s.300 of IPC – Held: Appellant rightly contended that the incident was in a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation – One of the conditions of Exception 4 is that the offender ought not to have taken the “undue advantage” or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Appellant inflicted a single blow injury with gupti which pierced into the lung of the victim – After having sustained a stick blow from PW-1, in the sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion, the appellant inflicted injury on victim – Thus, the case falls within the Exception 4 to s.300 – Accordingly, the conviction of appellant-accused u/s.302 IPC modified as s.304 Part II IPC.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the light of the settled principles, this Court has to consider whether facts of the present case fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC or not? PW-1/complainant is the real brother of victim-deceased and ‘D’ and the appellant is the cousin brother of their father. The house of the appellant and the house of ‘D’ are adjacent to each other and ‘D’ constructed a common wall between his premises and the house of the appellant and there was a dispute between them in sharing the expenses of the construction of wall and this became the reason for frequent quarrels between the parties. On the date of occurrence, there was an exchange of abuse between ‘D’, his wife PW-4 and the appellant. PW-5, son of ‘D’ called PW-1. Accordingly, PW-1 and his brother victim went to the house of ‘D’ and tried to pacify the situation which could not be controlled. In that process, victim abused the appellant who got annoyed and assaulted victim with stick on his back. On seeing this, PW-1 gave a stick blow on the head of the appellant. It was thereafter, the appellant went to his house and returned back armed with gupti and other accused and inflicted injury with gupti on the left armpit of victim. The above incident happened only after the exchange of abuse and the stick blow given by PW-1 on the head of the appellant. As noted above, the dispute between the appellant and ‘D’ was due to construction of a common wall and non-sharing of expenses. The house of the appellant, being the next house of ‘D’, there was no time gap between the first incident and the incident that followed, in which the appellant inflicted gupti injury on the left armpit of the victim. Both the incidents cannot be said to be two different parts but are integral part of the same incident. [Para 14][205-F-H; 206-A-C]
2. It is rightly contended by the appellant, the incident was in a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. One of the conditions of Exception 4 is that the offender ought not to have taken the “undue advantage” or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The appellant inflicted a single blow injury with gupti on the left armpit which pierced through the upper end of the left arm and then entered the chest causing fracture of fourth rib and reached till the lung causing rupture of left lung vasculature. Though, the gupti was a dangerous weapon, the appellant-accused caused a single injury which pierced into the lung. Having sustained a stick blow from PW-1, in the sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion, the appellant inflicted the injury on victimdeceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC is liable to be modified as Section 304 Part II IPC. [Para 15][206-G, H; 207-A, B]
Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa (2004) 11 SCC 395 – relied on.
Surain Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 796; Pappu v. State of M.P. (2006) 7 SCC 391 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 394; Asif Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Another 2019 (4) SCALE 7 – 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.