A sudden fight without premeditation, even if leading to death, does not constitute murder under Section 302 IPC but falls under Section 304 IPC. Testimony of interested witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship; it must be scrutinized carefully. For a conviction under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must establish premeditation, cruelty, or intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt. If an accused uses a weapon in a manner indicating no intention to kill, he may be granted the benefit of Exception IV to Section 300 IPC.

Homicidal Death Established: Post-mortem report (Exhibit-15) and Medical Officer’s testimony (PW-4) confirmed that the deceased’s death was homicidal. Absence of Premeditation: The incident was a sudden fight over an agricultural boundary dispute. Weapons used (stick & blunt side of the axe) were not lethal enough to indicate pre-planned murder. No attempt to use the sharp side of the axe, indicating the absence of an intention to kill. Applicability of Exception IV to Section 300 IPC: The fight was not premeditated but occurred in the heat of the moment. The appellant did not act in a cruel manner or take undue advantage. Modification of Conviction: The Supreme Court converted the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone (6 years, 10 months) and directed to be released forthwith.

Appeal Partly Allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC Modified to Section 304 Part I IPC. Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone. Appellant Directed to be Released Immediately

Acts & Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) – Article 136 (Special Leave Petition)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 164 (Recording of Statements), Section 173 (Investigation & Filing of Chargesheet)

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 (Murder), Section 304 Part I (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder), Section 34 (Common Intention), Section 323 (Voluntarily Causing Hurt), Section 326 (Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt), Section 504 (Intentional Insult to Provoke Breach of Peace), Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation)

Subjects:

Culpable Homicide – Murder – Common Intention – Sudden Fight – Agricultural Dispute – Eye Witnesses – Family Feud – Interested Witnesses – Lack of Premeditation – Exception IV of Section 300 IPC – Concurrent Findings – Testimony of Relatives

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation

   • Criminal appeal before the Supreme Court challenging conviction under Section 302 IPC.

2. Who Approached the Court & Remedy Sought

   • The appellant (Accused No.2) sought modification of his conviction from Murder (Section 302 IPC) to Culpable Homicide (Section 304 IPC).

3. Reason for Filing the Case

   • The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant contended that the offense fell under Section 304 IPC due to the absence of premeditation.

4. Previous Decisions

   • Trial Court (5th December 2012): Convicted under Section 302 IPC & Section 324 IPC.

   • High Court (10th August 2021): Upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

   • Supreme Court (SLP Limited to Sentence): Examined whether the conviction could be modified to Section 304 IPC.

Issues:

1. Whether the prosecution proved that the act of the appellant amounted to Murder (Section 302 IPC)?

2. Whether the offense could be categorized under Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder (Section 304 IPC)?

3. Whether the testimony of related witnesses could be relied upon?

Submissions/Arguments:

Appellant’s Counsel:

a) Reliability of Witnesses: Prosecution relied on the testimony of relatives of the deceased, making them interested witnesses.
b) Nature of the Incident: There was no premeditated intent to commit murder; the fight occurred due to a sudden quarrel over agricultural land.
c) Type of Weapons Used: A stick and the blunt side of an axe were used, indicating no intent to cause death.
d) Nature of Injuries: Injuries do not suggest that the appellant took undue advantage or acted cruelly.

State’s Counsel:

a) Concurrent Findings: Both the Trial Court and High Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC after considering evidence.
b) Homicidal Death Proven: Medical evidence and eyewitness testimony established that the deceased succumbed to injuries caused by the appellant.
c) Intentional Act: The appellant and co-accused assaulted the deceased, leading to fatal injuries.