Penal Code, 1860: s. 304 Part I, s 300 exception 4 – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Appellant and the victim, both Lance Naik in the Indian Army – Altercation between them on the issue of seniority, after consuming liquor – Appellant snatched the rifle from the hands of the victim and fired one bullet at him, resulting in the death of the victim – Appellant convicted by the court martial for the offence punishable u/s. 302 rw s. 69 of the Army Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life – Order of conviction and sentence upheld by the courts below – On appeal, held: There was no premeditation on the part of the appellant – There was a sudden fight between the appellant and the deceased over the issue of seniority – Every possibility that the said issue resulted in the appellant snatching the rifle held by the deceased and firing only one bullet in a heat of passion – Furthermore, the appellant did not run away and helped others to take the deceased to a hospital – Hence, there was no intention on his part to kill the deceased – Appellant cannot be said to have acted in such a cruel manner which would deprive him of the benefit of exception 4 to s. 300 – Term ‘cruel’ manner is a relative term, if the meaning used in common parlance is assigned, in no case exception 4 can be applied – Thus, exception 4 to s. 300 applicable, and appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction of the appellant altered to the one under Part 1 of s.
304 – In view of the good conduct of the appellant, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the term which he has already undergone – Army Act, 1950 – s. 69.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The facts brought on record show that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant. Both the appellant and the deceased had consumed liquor. There was a fight between him and the deceased over the issue of seniority. In fact, when the appellant told the deceased to bring water for him, the deceased refused to do so on the ground that he was senior to the appellant. In a disciplined force like Army, the seniority has all the importance. Therefore, there is every possibility that the dispute over seniority resulted in the appellant doing the act in a heat of passion. It appears that in the heat of passion, the appellant snatched a rifle held by the deceased and fired only one bullet. If there was any premeditation on the part of the appellant or if he had any intention to kill the deceased, he would have fired more bullets at the deceased. Hence, there was no intention on his part to kill the deceased. Whether the appellant had done a cruel act or not, has to be appreciated after considering three facts. Firstly, the appellant was a soldier on guard duty, secondly, the appellant and the deceased had a fight over the seniority and thirdly, though there were 20 rounds in the rifle of the deceased, he fired only one round. The appellant cannot be said to have acted in such a cruel manner which would deprive him of the benefit of exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The term cruel manner is a relative term. Exception 4 applies when a man kills another. By ordinary standards, this itself is a cruel act. The appellant fired only one bullet which proved to be fatal. He did not fire more bullets though available. He did not run away and he helped others to take the deceased to a hospital. If a meaning is assigned to the word ‘cruel’ used in exception 4 which is used in common parlance, in no case exception 4 can be applied. Therefore, exception 4 to Section 300 was applicable in this case. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant snatched the rifle from the hands of the deceased and fired one bullet at the deceased. This act was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased as was likely to cause death. Therefore, the first part of Section 304 IPC would apply. Under the first part of Section
304 IPC, an accused can be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years. [Para 11][1145-C-H; 1146-A-D]
1.2 PW-5 and PW-10 admitted that the accused had a ‘nice reputation’. The conduct of the appellant would be a mitigating & ANR.
factor for determining the sentence. It is not in dispute that the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 9 years and approximately 3 months. Taking an overall view of the evidence on record, the sentence already undergone by the appellant would be an appropriate sentence in the facts of the case. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC is altered to the one under Part 1 of Section 304 IPC. The appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the term which he has already undergone. [Paras 12 and 13][1146-D-G]
Prakash Chand v. State of H.P. (2004) 11 SCC 381 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 389; Sukhdev Singh v. Delhi State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2003) 7 SCC 441 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 224 – 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.