Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FAZL ALI
PRANDAS
VERSU
State
Decided on March 14, 1950
"In our opinion the case comes within the second part of section 304, which deals with the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death." (per Fazl Ali J.).
Facts of the Case:
A dispute arose over water flow into a paddy field in village Taga, leading to an altercation between Prandas (appellant) and Gayaram (deceased) along with his family members. On the day of the incident, while discussing settlement by panchayat, a sudden fight ensued involving lathis/gedi poles picked from nearby. Prandas struck Gayaram on the head, causing fatal injuries, while both sides sustained injuries, including multiple on Prandas and his group (e.g., head injuries, fractured bone). (!) [1000097610001] (!) [1000097610002] (!) (!) (!) (!)
Prosecution Version:
Gayaram and family were sitting peacefully when Prandas approached with a lathi, struck Gayaram multiple blows on the head after one was warded off, leading to his fall. Others then joined, injuring Gayaram's wife and sons. (!) (!) [1000097610003] (!)
Defence Version:
Hiraram (Gayaram's son) initiated the assault on Prandas with a gedi pole; Gayaram and others joined as aggressors. Prandas and his group defended themselves in a free fight where both sides picked up weapons and struck each other indiscriminately. [1000097610002] (!) (!) (!)
Trial Court (Sessions Judge):
Acquitted all accused, finding unreliable prosecution witnesses (interested parties), crediting independent witness Thandaram's account of sudden free fight with Gayaram's side as aggressors. Held right of private defence justified actions, noting injuries on accused (10 total, including 5 on head and arm fracture). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
High Court:
Allowed government appeal under S.417 CrPC, reversed acquittal. Relied on Agardas (saw Prandas strike Gayaram once on head) and FIR for genesis; discredited Thandaram due to poor eyesight. Convicted Prandas under S.302 (murder, life transport) and S.323 (3 months RI), finding no right of private defence and exception 4 to S.300 inapplicable as Prandas took "undue advantage" or acted "cruelly/unusually." (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000097610004][1000097610005]
Supreme Court Holdings:
- High Court's appellate power under S.417/423 CrPC allows full evidence review, but must weigh trial judge's credibility findings, innocence presumption, benefit of doubt, and advantage of seeing witnesses. [1000097610005] (!)
- Prandas responsible for fatal head blow (both courts agreed). [1000097610007]
- No right of private defence: Even per Thandaram, Hiraram attacked first; no basis to target Gayaram fatally in response. [1000097610007] (!) [1000097610008]
- Applies Exception 4 to S.300 IPC: Sudden fight without premeditation, in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel; no undue advantage/cruelty shown (injuries evenly distributed, accused's 6 injuries incl. head/fracture not reversed, Gayaram not assaulted post-fall, witnesses discrepant on blows, Agardas saw only one). Thus, not murder under S.302. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred][1000097610009] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Offence under S.304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not murder, with knowledge act likely to cause death): 5 years RI. S.323 conviction/sentence stands concurrently. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred] (!) (!)
Key Legal Principles:
In sudden fights, culpable homicide not murder if without premeditation, in sudden quarrel's heat, sans cruelty/undue advantage—evidenced by mutual injuries, single blows, no post-submission assault. Appellate reversal of acquittal demands reasoned weight to trial findings. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred][1000097610006][1000097610009] (!) (!) (!)
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by special leave from the decision of the High Court at Nagpur, allowing the appeal of the Government of the Central Provinces and Berar under S. 417, Code of Criminal Procedure , against the acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Judge of Bilaspur, and convicting him for committing murder of one Gayaram and causing hurt to his wife, Bahartin, and sentencing him to transportation for life and three months rigorous imprisonment under Ss. 302 and 323 respectively of the Indian Penal Code.
( 2 ) THE case of the proseuction as presented in the trial Court may be shortly stated as follows. In village Taga, which adjoins village Dhanwa, where the alleged crime is said to have been committed, there is a field belonging to the deceased, Gayaram, and his sons, in which paddy was sown in 1948. On 15-8-1948, Hiraram, one of Gayaram s sons, arranged to bring water into this field from the field of one Tiharu, one of his relations, by making an opening in the ridge of an adjoining field belonging to one Sadhram. On the same day, in the afternoon, one Sukhchaindass, brother of the appellant, Prandas, stopped the water flowing from Sadhram s field, alleging that Pradas had asked him not to allow the water to pass through that field as he had purchased it from Sadhram.
NEXT day, while Hariram and his father, Gayaram, were sitting in the verandah of one Thandaram, the latter proposed to Pradas, who was in his own verandah (opposite to that of Thandaram) that the dispute between him and Gayaram should be settled amicably by panchayat. While this proposal was being discussed, an altercation ensued, and Pradas proceeded with a lathi to the place where Gayaram was standing and inflicted on him several blows. The first blow was warded off by Gayaram with his right hand, but the next two blows fell on his head and he fell down. Thereafter, some of the relations of Prandas beat Hariram and Hiraram, sons of Gayaram, and Tiharu, cousin of Gayaram and Prandas struck Bahartin, wife of Gayaram. Hiraram then retaliated by striking Prandas on the head.
( 3 ) THE same evening, between 9 and 9-45 P. M. , several reports were recorded by the police officer in-charge of police station, Jangir, which is at a distance of 3 miles from the place of occurrence, including the report of Hariram, which has been treated as the first information report in the present case, and that of Prandas and his relations who were also injured in the course of occurrence and who gave their own versions thereof. Prandas s version which forms the ground work of the defence story put forward at the trial, was practically the same as the prosecution version as to the events which led to the clash. But it gives a different picture of the actual occurrence since, according to him, it was Hiraram who opened the assault by attacking him and Gayaram and his men were the aggressors.
( 4 ) THE police immediately registered a case and, as a result of the investigation which followed, five persons including the appellant were committed to the Court of Session and were variously charged under Ss. 302, 148, 325 and 323, Penal Code. The leanred Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the account given by four principal witnesses who were examined by the prosecution to prove its version of the occurrence was wholly unreliable as
"they were interested persons, being Gayaram s relations, and had suppressed material parts of the ocucrrence. "
HE however based his judgment mainly upon the evidence of Thandaram and a boy of 16 named Agardas, who had witnessed only a part of the occurrence.
IT is common ground that Thandaram was present at the time of the occurrence and in the first information report of Hairam, he was named as a witness along with three other persons, Ganesh, Bihari and Makkan. The prosecution however did not examine either Thandaram or any of the other three persons. Thandaram was also cited as a witness by the accused, but they ultimately decided not to ex
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
