Assault Arising from Spur-of-the-Moment Dispute Lacks 'Common Object' for Murder; Conviction Altered from S.302 to S.304 Part-II IPC: Gauhati High Court - 2025-07-11

Gauhati HC Alters Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide, Cites Lack of Premeditation in Village Dispute

Guwahati , Assam – The Gauhati High Court has altered the murder conviction of ten individuals to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their life sentences to eight years of rigorous imprisonment. A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita ruled that while the accused shared a common object to assault the deceased, the evidence did not support an intention to kill, as the incident arose on the spur of the moment from a village dispute.

The court held that the use of non-deadly weapons like tree branches and the absence of prior enmity indicated that the appellants' common object was to "teach a lesson" rather than to commit murder, thus warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) instead of Section 302.

---

Case Background: A Village Meeting Turns Fatal

The case originates from an incident on January 8, 2009, in Barpeta district. A village meeting ( Bichar ) was convened to address a relationship between Rahim Ali (son of the deceased, Hazrat Ali ) and a girl named Saina . When Hazrat Ali opposed the marriage decision made at the meeting, a heated altercation ensued.

Following the disagreement, as Hazrat Ali and his supporters were leaving, they were waylaid and assaulted by a group of ten men, the appellants in this case. The attackers used bamboo lathis and branches of a Kendukona tree, inflicting severe head injuries on Hazrat Ali . He succumbed to his injuries two days later at Barpeta Civil Hospital.

In 2019, the Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, convicted all ten appellants for rioting, wrongful restraint, and murder under Sections 147, 148, 341, and 302 read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly with a common object) of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

---

Appellants' Plea: No Intent to Kill

Before the High Court, the appellants argued that the incident was not premeditated. They contended that: * They attended the village meeting unarmed, indicating no prior plan to attack. * The altercation was a spontaneous outcome of the disagreement at the meeting. * Their common object was, at most, to assault Hazrat Ali for his opposition, not to cause his death. * The primary weapons used were tree branches, which are not considered deadly weapons.

They sought the conversion of their conviction from murder (Section 302) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II).

State's Argument: Injuries Were Sufficient to Cause Death

The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that multiple eyewitnesses consistently testified to the brutal assault by the appellants. While conceding the lack of premeditation, the prosecution maintained that the head injuries inflicted were, as per the post-mortem report, "sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature," thereby justifying the murder conviction.

---

High Court's Analysis: Distinguishing Intention from Knowledge

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and found critical gaps in the prosecution's case for a murder conviction. The bench noted that the entire incident stemmed from a "spur of the moment" dispute and lacked the element of premeditation or prior enmity.

The court made a key observation regarding the nature of the attack:

"What emerges from the evidence on record is that the incident happened only because of opposition of the deceased Hazrat to the proposed marriage... No previous enmity or premeditation on the part of the appellants to commit the alleged offence transpires from the materials on record."

The judgment highlighted that while witnesses testified to the assault, only one accused, Anser Bhuyan , was specifically identified as striking the deceased's neck with a bamboo lathi. The others used branches of a Kendukona tree, which the court observed, "may not be regarded as deadly weapon."

Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in Jugut Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) , which deals with assaults using lathis, the bench emphasized the need to distinguish between an "intention to cause death" and the "knowledge that death was likely to occur."

The court concluded:

"Hence, though there is evidence to show that the appellants assaulted Hazrat Ali with a common object to teach him a lesson for opposing the marriage of his son... however, it cannot be conclusively inferred that they intended to cause such bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."

---

Final Verdict

Setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC, the Gauhati High Court converted it to Section 304 Part-II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) read with Section 149 of the IPC. The court sentenced all ten appellants to rigorous imprisonment for eight years and a fine of ₹5,000 each. The convictions under other sections were upheld, with all sentences to run concurrently.