Penal Code, 1860: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Prosecution case was that an altercation took place between the victim-deceased and the respondent-accused at the place of marriage ceremony – Due to intervention of villagers, matter did not proceed further – After few hours around 12:00 in night, when victim-deceased was near his house, accused attacked him by giving blows on his head with the “Danda/Phakadiyat”, a rough piece of wood – Deceased ran towards his house for safety – Accused ran after him with “Phakadiyat” in his hand and gave several blows which resulted in fracture of his head and multiple injuries – Complainant-wife and mother of the deceased tried to rescue the deceased but failed – Due to grievous injuries, deceased fell unconscious – He was taken to hospital where he died after few days – Trial court held accused guilty under s.302 IPC – High Court although believed the evidence of all the eye witnesses, however, held that culpable homicide did not amount to murder; rather it was a sudden fight which ensued in the heat of passion between the two and the case fell under the fourth exception to s.300 IPC and consequently converted the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment – Aggrieved State filed instant appeal – Held: The second incident cannot be said to be a result of sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel – Accused chased the deceased in the mid night and even after the deceased reached his house, he was beaten by the accused in front of his house which was witnessed by his wife – From the multiple injuries sustained by the deceased, it can be seen that the accused used the “Phakadiyat” with such a force that it resulted in skull fracture at the frontal wound on the left side; stitched wounds with 34 stitches with left side of the skull extended from mid of the left side of the skull along with coronal sutures of 16 cm; brain lacerated and clots present in the frontoparietal and lacerated brain wound extended up to the frontoparietal and temporal – The case would certainly fall under Clauses thirdly and/or fourthly to s.300 IPC – Respondent-accused is guilty for the offence under s.302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has erred in observing and/or accepting the case on behalf of the accused that the incident had taken place due to a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel in the mehendi ceremony. The second incident had not taken place at all during the mehendi ceremony. The second incident had taken place near the house of the deceased and that too after the first incident was over, everybody went to their houses and thereafter at 12:00 in the mid night the second incident had taken place in which the accused gave several blows to the deceased by “Phakadiyat” on the head, thigh etc. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing that the case would fall under Fourth exception to Section 300 IPC. [Para 5][536-G-H; 537-A-B]
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 : [1958]
0 SCR 1495; Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC 322; Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444; Singapagu Anjaiah v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 754; State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal (2019) 5 SCC 639 : [2019] 5 SCR 569 – relied on.
2. As per Section 300 IPC, if the case falls within Clauses thirdly and fourthly to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide can be said to be amounting to murder. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court has committed a grave error in observing that culpable homicide did not amount to murder, by applying exception Fourth to Section 300 IPC. Exception Fourth to Section 300 IPC ought not to have been applied by the High Court at all considering the fact that the main second incident had taken place subsequently at 12:00 in the night, much after the first incident of altercation was over in the mehendi ceremony. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable both, on facts as well as on law. The respondent-accused is held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC for having killed and/or committed the murder of the deceased and he is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. [Paras 7, 8][543-F-H; 544-B]
Stalin v. State (2020) 9 SCC 524; Mahesh Balmiki v. State of M.P. (2000) 1 SCC 319; Arun Raj v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 457 : [2010] 7 SCR 1; Ashok kumar Magabhai Vankar v. State of Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 604; State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram (2019) 13 SCC 131; Bavisetti Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2008)
15 SCC 725 : [2008] 5 SCR 408 – 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.