Case Note & Summary
The appellant Nandlal and the deceased Lakhichand were relatives. A dispute over a common wall led to frequent quarrels. On 16.05.2006, an exchange of abuse occurred between the appellant and Dilip (brother of deceased). Gopichand (PW-1) and Lakhichand (deceased) intervened. During the altercation, the appellant hit Lakhichand with a stick, and Gopichand struck the appellant on the head with a stick. The appellant then went home, returned with a gupti along with two others, and inflicted a fatal injury on Lakhichand's left armpit. The trial court convicted all three under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court affirmed the appellant's conviction but acquitted the other two. The Supreme Court considered whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applied. It held that the incident was a continuous transaction arising from a sudden quarrel, the appellant did not take undue advantage as the deceased was an active participant, and the act was not cruel or unusual. The conviction was modified to Section 304 Part II IPC, and the sentence reduced to the period already undergone (about 12 years).
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - Sudden Fight - The appellant, after an initial altercation and being struck on the head, went home and returned with a weapon to attack the deceased - The court held that the incident was a continuous transaction and the appellant did not take undue advantage, as the deceased was part of the initial quarrel - Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part II IPC (Paras 12-16).
B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Acquittal of Co-accused - The High Court acquitted accused No.2 and 3 as they joined later and there was no common intention to murder - The Supreme Court did not disturb this finding (Paras 2, 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC should be modified to Section 304 Part II IPC based on Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (about 12 years). The appeal was partly allowed.
Law Points
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
- sudden fight
- undue advantage
- Section 304 Part II IPC
- common intention
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2655 of 2019 @ SLP(Crl.) D. No. 29728 of 2018)
Mr. Dinesh Chandra Pandey for appellant, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar for respondent
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder
Remedy Sought
Modification of conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC
Filing Reason
Appellant aggrieved by High Court judgment affirming conviction under Section 302 IPC
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; High Court affirmed conviction of appellant but acquitted co-accused
Issues
Whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?
Whether conviction should be modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel and there was no intention to murder, relying on Surain Singh v. State of Punjab.
Respondent argued that the appellant went home and returned with a weapon, indicating premeditation and not a sudden fight.
Ratio Decidendi
For Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to apply, the act must be without premeditation, in a sudden fight, without undue advantage, and not cruel or unusual. Here, the incident was a continuous transaction arising from a sudden quarrel, the appellant did not take undue advantage as the deceased was an active participant, and the injury was not cruel or unusual. Hence, the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The only point falling for consideration is whether the appellant-accused has made out a case for modification of his conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC?
Even if the fight is unpremeditated and sudden, if the weapon or manner of retaliation is disproportionate to the offence and if the accused had taken the undue advantage of the deceased, the accused cannot be protected under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Procedural History
Trial court convicted appellant and two others under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. High Court affirmed appellant's conviction but acquitted co-accused. Supreme Court granted leave limited to nature of offence and quantum of sentence.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 304 Part II, 300 Exception 4, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 313
