The Supreme Court, in this appeal, partially allowed the case by converting the conviction of the Appellant from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court observed that the incident occurred in a sudden fight, without premeditation, and the accused did not act in a cruel or unusual manner. As a result, the Appellant's sentence was reduced to eight years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000.

1. Leave Granted (Para 1):
   The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

2. Case Overview (Para 2):
   The appeal challenges the conviction and life sentence given to the Appellant by the High Court, which affirmed the Sessions Court's judgment for the murder of Vikrant @ Chintu.

3. Facts Leading to the Appeal (Paras 3-3.8):

   • Incident (Para 3.1):
     On 18th August 2005, Vikrant @ Chintu died after being attacked by the Appellant at Shiv Dhaba in Jagadhri. The Appellant broke a glass bottle and inflicted injuries on the deceased after a quarrel over a minor exchange.

   • Prosecution Case (Para 3.2):
     The quarrel started when the deceased called the waiter, which irritated the Appellant, leading to abuse and a physical altercation outside the Dhaba. The Appellant broke a bottle and inflicted injuries, leading to Vikrant’s death.

   • Investigation and Chargesheet (Para 3.3-3.4):
     FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, the charges were framed, and the trial commenced.

   • Trial Court Conviction (Para 3.6):
     The Appellant was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, which was upheld by the High Court.

4. Legal Arguments (Paras 5-7):

   • Appellant’s Argument (Para 6):
     The Appellant's counsel argued that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation and that the case should fall under Section 304 IPC instead of 302 IPC.

   • Respondent’s Argument (Para 7):
     The prosecution defended the conviction, arguing that both the trial court and High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and the findings warranted no interference.

5. Prosecution’s Case and Evidence (Paras 8-12):

   • Witness Testimonies (Paras 9-11):
     Key eyewitnesses (PW10, PW11, and PW12) testified about the quarrel and attack by the Appellant using a glass bottle.

   • Medical Evidence (Para 12):
     The doctor who examined the deceased listed five serious injuries caused by the broken glass bottle.

6. Court's Observations (Paras 13-14): The Court found that the incident occurred suddenly, without premeditation, in a fit of passion, and the Appellant had not acted cruelly. Therefore, Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC (sudden fight) applied.

7. Judgment (Paras 15-17): The Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced the Appellant to eight years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The appeal was partly allowed, and the Appellant’s time in custody would be set off against the sentence.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 302, IPC: Murder
• Section 304, Part I, IPC: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (with intent to cause death or knowledge that the act would likely cause death)
• Exception 4, Section 300 IPC: Sudden fight without premeditation, in heat of passion

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court held that since the incident occurred without premeditation and was a result of a sudden quarrel, the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was not tenable. The case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, leading to a reduced conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Culpable Homicide, Sudden Fight

Section 302 IPC, Section 304 IPC, Sudden Quarrel, Conviction Alteration