Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) comprising Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh Deshpande, modified the conviction of an accused originally found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, reducing it to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II.
The Court ruled that the death of the deceased resulted from a sudden quarrel and scuffle, with no premeditation, weapon, or prior enmity. The accused had only knowledge that his act could result in death but lacked the intention to kill.
The Bench observed:
“The law prefers minimal intervention in cases of sudden fights. Where there is no premeditation and the assault arises out of momentary loss of control, the act falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.”
Accordingly, the Court modified the life imprisonment imposed by the trial court to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-II IPC, with the fine of ₹500 maintained.
Facts
The case arose from a village altercation on 26 April 2003, where the accused, a daily wage worker, got into a heated argument with the deceased, an auto-rickshaw driver, after tobacco dust accidentally entered the deceased’s eyes while the accused was rubbing tobacco on his palm.
Angry words were exchanged, leading to a physical scuffle. Witnesses stated that both men pushed and hit each other, and the accused allegedly kicked the deceased in the abdomen, causing him to collapse. The deceased was rushed to a nearby clinic and later referred to Buldhana General Hospital, but he succumbed to internal injuries on the way.
The post-mortem revealed internal lacerations in the mesentery and liver, with around 250 ml of blood in the abdominal cavity. There were no external injuries. The cause of death was shock due to injury to the liver.
The trial court convicted the accused for murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with fine. On appeal, the accused contended that the incident fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC as it occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation.
Issues
- Whether the death of the deceased constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
- Whether the accused’s act was covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which applies to deaths caused in sudden fights without premeditation.
- Whether the absence of external injuries and weapon use altered the nature of the offence.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The defence argued that the altercation was spontaneous and unplanned, arising from an insignificant cause — tobacco dust entering the deceased’s eyes. The accused and the deceased were friends and colleagues, and there was no prior enmity or intent to kill.
Counsel contended that the fight escalated impulsively, and the fatal injury occurred when the accused kicked the deceased once in the abdomen during the scuffle. The accused had no reason to anticipate that such a blow would prove fatal.
He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770, emphasizing that the nature of weapon, part of the body injured, and intention determine whether an act constitutes murder or culpable homicide.
It was urged that the act clearly fell under Exception 4 to Section 300, covering death caused in a sudden fight without premeditation, and the conviction should be altered to Section 304-II IPC.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution maintained that the accused’s conduct indicated intentional aggression. Even after the deceased fell down, the accused continued assaulting him with kicks and fists. This, it argued, proved intention to cause death or, at the very least, knowledge of the likely fatal outcome.
The Additional Public Prosecutor cited Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (AIR 2025 SC 3805) and Anbazhagan v. State (2023 Cri LJ 3979), to argue that Exception 4 to Section 300 does not apply when the accused acts in an “unusual or cruel manner” or takes undue advantage of the situation.
Accordingly, the State sought dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Analysis of the Law
The Court undertook an extensive examination of Sections 299 and 300 IPC, distinguishing between culpable homicide and murder. It reiterated that culpable homicide is the broader genus, while murder is a narrower species within it.
Justice Joshi-Phalke clarified:
“Every act of homicide is culpable homicide, but only those done with the degree of intention defined in Section 300 constitute murder.”
Under Section 300 Exception 4, homicide committed without premeditation, in the heat of passion, during a sudden fight, and without taking undue advantage is not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Court observed that the accused’s actions fit squarely within this exception. There was no weapon, no repeated assault, and no evidence of cruelty. The injury, though fatal, was caused in the course of a mutual fight triggered by a trivial provocation.
Precedent Analysis
- Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770 – Clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide, holding that where intention to kill is absent but knowledge exists, the offence falls under Section 304-II IPC.
- Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (AIR 2025 SC 3805) – The Supreme Court reiterated that Exception 4 applies only when the fight is sudden, mutual, and without premeditation, provided the offender does not act cruelly or take undue advantage.
- Anbazhagan v. State (2023 Cri LJ 3979) – The Court explained that when an accused acts without intent to kill but with knowledge of likely consequences, the act falls under Section 304 Part II.
- Smt. Nagindra Bala Mitra v. Sunil Chandra Roy (1960 3 SCR 1) and Anuj Singh v. State of Bihar (2022 LiveLaw SC 402) – Cited to highlight the evidentiary weight of medical testimony as independent proof corroborating eyewitness accounts.
These precedents collectively guided the Bench in holding that the absence of premeditation and weapon, combined with the nature of the injury, reduced the offence from murder to culpable homicide.
Court’s Reasoning
After assessing the eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence, the Court found that the deceased’s injury to the liver was consistent with a single, forceful kick or fall. The fight was spontaneous, born out of trivial provocation.
The Court noted:
“The quarrel started suddenly due to the dust of tobacco entering the eyes of the deceased. There was no pre-planning, no enmity, and no weapon. The accused acted in the heat of passion without taking undue advantage.”
The absence of external injuries and the presence of internal damage further supported the conclusion that the accused did not act with intention to kill. His knowledge that the act could cause death, however, attracted liability under Section 304-II.
Thus, the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was set aside, and substituted with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-II.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction and sentence as follows:
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside.
- Accused convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC.
- Sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, with the ₹500 fine maintained.
- Benefit of set-off granted under Section 428 CrPC for time already served.
The Court reaffirmed:
“Every quarrel does not make a man a murderer. When an act arises from a sudden loss of control without malice, the law demands tempered justice, not vengeance.”
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that sudden quarrels leading to death without premeditation fall within the protective ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. It underscores that:
- The intention and knowledge of the accused are decisive in differentiating murder from culpable homicide.
- Medical evidence and witness consistency remain critical in establishing the true nature of a crime.
- Courts must avoid imposing disproportionate punishment in cases of heat-of-the-moment violence devoid of motive.
The decision reaffirms judicial restraint and the importance of proportional sentencing in accidental or impulsive homicides.
