Penal Code, 1860 – Exception 4 to s.300 and s.304 Part II – Quarrel between ‘Rh’ and ‘Ru’ escalated into altercation and soon they were joined by some other persons – Altercation subsequently turned violent and appellant, uncle of ‘Ru’, pierced brother of ‘Rh’ with ballam (spear) on left side of his chest and also injured ‘Rh’ – Brother of ‘Rh’ was taken home where he was declared dead – Whether appellant had the intention of causing the death of brother of ‘Rh’ – Held: No – Facts of the instant case indicate that all the ingredients of Exception 4 to s.300 IPC were present – The fight was sudden and not premeditated (a finding of both the Courts below) and appellant was not found to have taken undue advantage of his carrying a ballam (spear) in the sense of inflicting any other serious injury, except a contusion to ‘Rh’ – That being the position, it cannot be held that appellant had the intention to murder brother of ‘Rh’ or to cause him such bodily injury as is likely to cause death – None of the witnesses have given any indication that appellant had intention to cause the death of brother of ‘Rh’ – During the altercation appellant did pierce the chest of brother of ‘Rh’ but the intention to kill him is not apparent – However, appellant must be attributed with the knowledge that piercing the left side of the chest with a ballam (spear) would result in a bodily injury that is likely to cause death – Under the circumstances, the conviction of appellant u/s. 302 set aside – Instead, appellant convicted u/s.304 Part II – Appellant has been behind bars for almost 14 years – His sentence altered to the period of incarceration he has already undergone and ordered to be released forthwith – Sentence/ Sentencing.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The facts of the present case indicate that all the ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC are present. The fight was sudden and not premeditated (this is the finding of both the courts) and appellant is not found to have taken undue advantage of his carrying a ballam (spear) in the sense of inflicting any other serious injury, except a contusion to ‘Rh’. That being the position, it cannot be held that appellant had the intention to murder brother of ‘Rh’ (BL) or to cause him such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Section 304 of the IPC provides the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I of this Section provides that if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death then the punishment may extend upto imprisonment for life. On the other hand, Part II of Section
304 IPC provides that if the offending act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death then the punishment may extend to imprisonment for 10 years. [Paras 11, 12] [675-F-H; 676-A-B]
2. The intention to cause death must not be readily inferred. Both the Trial Court as well as the High Court have, on the basis of the mere fact that appellant pierced the chest of ‘BL’ with a ballam (spear) , assumed that he intended to cause the death of ‘BL’. There is nothing on the record to suggest such an intention and none of the witnesses have given any indication of appellant’s intention to cause the death of ‘BL’. It is quite clear that during the altercation, appellant did pierce the chest of ‘BL’ but the intention to kill him is not apparent. However, appellant must be attributed with the knowledge that piercing the left side of the chest with a spear would result in a bodily injury that is likely to cause death. [Para 13] [676-C-D]
3. In view of the evidence on record, the ingredients of murder as explained in Section 300 of the IPC are missing in this case. The intention of appellant was to cause bodily injury to ‘BL’ and piercing the chest of ‘BL’ with a spear was such an injury that could possibly cause his death. This knowledge must be attributed to appellant. Under the circumstances, the conviction of appellant of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside but he is convicted of an offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC. The appellant has been behind bars for almost 14 years. His sentence is altered to the period of incarceration he has already undergone. He be released forthwith. [Paras 14, 15] [676-E-G]
Surain Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 796 – relied on.
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.