Court’s Decision:
The Gauhati High Court, in this case, upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of a seven-year-old child. The court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Court, which had sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 10,000. The appellant had claimed that the murder was committed in the heat of passion and that the case should be considered under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which would reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC). However, the court rejected this argument and found the appellant’s actions to be cruel and intentional, which warranted the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Facts:
The case revolves around the tragic murder of a seven-year-old child. On March 5, 2019, the appellant, while carrying a dao (a traditional sharp weapon), approached a group of children playing near a tamarind tree in the village. The children were allegedly teasing and taunting the appellant. The appellant, in a fit of anger, struck the deceased child on the neck and head with the dao, causing the child’s death instantly. The attack was witnessed by two other minors who were present at the scene.
After the murder, the appellant was arrested, and during the investigation, he confessed to the crime under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The Sessions Court later convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Issues:
Was the murder committed under sudden provocation as claimed by the appellant, and can the charge be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC?
Was the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction under Section 302 IPC, including eyewitness testimony and the appellant’s confession?
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellant did not have any intention to kill the child.
He was provoked by the children who were teasing him, leading to a sudden and uncontrollable outburst.
The appellant’s actions should be covered under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which provides leniency for crimes committed in the heat of passion or due to sudden provocation. Hence, the appellant should be convicted under Section 304 IPC (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder), which carries a lighter sentence.
The defense pointed to the appellant’s confession, stating that he acted out of sudden anger and did not intend to kill the child.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The crime was deliberate and brutal, evidenced by multiple blows to the child’s vital body parts (neck and head) with a sharp weapon.
The presence of two eyewitnesses who were children playing with the victim at the time of the attack strengthened the case against the appellant.
The appellant had confessed to the crime voluntarily under Section 164 Cr.P.C., admitting to killing the child, and his claims of sudden provocation could not reduce the severity of the crime.
Simple teasing by children cannot be considered as grave provocation, especially to justify the use of deadly force.
The manner in which the attack was carried out — striking the child with a dao on the neck and head — showed cruelty, and the appellant took undue advantage by attacking a seven-year-old child who could not defend himself.
The prosecution relied on various Supreme Court rulings to establish that the absence of a motive was irrelevant in this case, as there were direct eyewitnesses who testified about the attack. The prosecution also emphasized that the crime did not meet the criteria for Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
Analysis of the Law:
The court analyzed the legal provisions and precedents related to Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which allows for a reduction in the severity of a murder charge if the crime was committed in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the offender acting in a cruel or unusual manner.
Sudden provocation or fight: There was no evidence to support the claim that the attack was provoked by the victim in a manner that would justify such a violent response. Simple teasing by children does not constitute grave provocation.
Premeditation: While the defense argued that the attack was spontaneous, the court found that the manner in which the appellant carried out the attack — inflicting multiple blows with a sharp weapon — indicated a deliberate intent to kill.
Cruelty: The court emphasized that the appellant’s actions were cruel and disproportionate to the situation. Attacking a seven-year-old child with a weapon, especially targeting vital body parts, was considered an act of extreme cruelty.
Undue advantage: The court noted that the appellant had taken undue advantage of the child’s vulnerability and acted in a manner that could not be excused as a spontaneous outburst.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to key judgments from the Supreme Court, including the cases of:Sridhar Bhuyan vs. State of Orissa: This case outlined the conditions under which Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC could apply, emphasizing that the act must occur during a sudden fight and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner.
Anil Kumar vs. State of Kerala: The court reiterated that Exception 4 would not apply in cases where the offender acts with cruelty or takes undue advantage of the situation.
Based on these precedents, the court concluded that the appellant’s actions did not meet the criteria for Exception 4, as his attack on the child was both cruel and deliberate.
Court’s Reasoning:
The appellant’s defense of sudden provocation was weak, as the teasing by children did not justify the extreme reaction.
The attack was not only brutal but also carried out in a manner that showed a clear intent to kill. The appellant struck the child multiple times in vital areas, including the neck and head.
The eyewitness testimony of the other children, combined with the appellant’s voluntary confession, provided overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The court found that the Sessions Judge had correctly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and that there was no basis to reduce the charge to culpable homicide.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the life sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, finding no reason to interfere with the conviction under Section 302 IPC. The appellant’s plea for a reduction of the charge to culpable homicide was rejected.
Implications:
This judgment reinforces the principle that mere provocation or teasing does not justify extreme violence, especially against vulnerable individuals like children. It also sets a precedent that the law will not tolerate undue advantage or cruelty in situations of sudden altercations. Even in cases involving sudden anger or outbursts, the courts will take into account the nature and severity of the attack when determining the appropriate charge and sentence