IMPORTANT POINT
Case of Sudden verbal quarrel because of pending civil disputes without premeditated plan to attack deceased and injury of deceased, though not intentional, sufficient to cause death falls under section 304, Part II and not section 300.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300, explanation 4 and section 304, Part II – Sudden verbal quarrel because of pending civil disputes – No premeditated plan to attack deceased – Injury of deceased, though not intentional, sufficient to cause death – Deceased not instantaneously but after sometime – Case not falling u/s 300 but section 304, Part II. (Para 25, 31)
       (2004) 11 SCC 395; (2000) 9 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 5428 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       Appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
       High Court upheld the conviction.
       Finding of the Court:
       Appellants Manoj Kumar, Rangeel Singh and Surinder Singh are guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and not for the offence under Sec. 300 IPC.
       Result: Appeal disposed of.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court discusses whether the death resulted from premeditated intent to kill or from a sudden fight without premeditation, applying section 300 vs section 304 Part II IPC. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment analyzes Exception 4 to section 300 IPC, detailing conditions: no premeditation, sudden fight, heat of passion, sudden quarrel, and no undue advantage or cruel/unusual conduct. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - It concludes there was no premeditation and that the incident was a sudden fight arising from civil disputes, leading to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part II IPC. (!) (!) (!) - The High Court’s findings on motive, credibility of witnesses, and blood group evidence are evaluated in determining whether to apply section 304 Part II rather than section 302. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court modifies convictions from murder under section 302 to culpable homicide under section 304 Part II and adjusts sentences accordingly, with immediate release due to prior imprisonment. (!)

What is the classification of the offense given the facts—whether it constitutes murder under section 300 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part II?

What are the criteria and application of Exception 4 to section 300 IPC in the context of a sudden fight and heat of passion?

What factors determine whether premeditation was present or absent in the accused’s acts and how does that affect the appropriate IPC provision and sentence?

JUDGMENT

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment dated 20th November, 2009 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 2006 whereby the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence against the appellants as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The facts necessary to deal with these appeals, as culled out from the prosecution case, are that as per the revenue records one Jaram Singh (PW1) and others are the owners of land bearing Khata/Khatauni No. 164/220, Khasra No. 605. The said Jaram Singh (PW1) had mortgaged the aforesaid land with one Krishan Lal and Subhash Chand, but the land remained in the possession of Prem Dass (deceased). Disturbed with the interference of the appellants in the said land, PW1—Jaram Singh and the deceased Prem Dass filed a civil suit against the appellants and thereby restrained the appellants from raising any construction in the disputed land.

3. On 24th March, 2004 at about 8.30 p.m. Jeewan (PW12)—complainant left his house in search of his father Prem Dass who went to a nearby village, and found his father Prem Dass in the company of Yashwant Singh (PW13) and Narso Ram (DW1) near a village called Chhedu. All of them while returning to their village, they came across the disputed land where they found the appellants and their family members, seven persons in all. Suddenly at once, they attacked Prem Dass. Manoj Kumar (A4) was wielding a spade (belcha), Surinder Kumar (A3) was carrying a Drat (sickle) and other accused were armed with sticks. Manoj Kumar (A4) gave a belcha (spade) blow on the head of Prem Dass and accused Surinder Singh struck him with a blow of sickle causing injury on the right hand index finger of Prem Dass while other accused were beating him with sticks. In order to save their lives the deceased Prem Dass, Yashwant Singh (PW13), Narso Ram (DW1) and the complainant Jeewan (PW12) ran from the scene helter-skelter, while the accused Rangeel Singh (A1) was declaring that Prem Dass will have to lose his life. By adopting another route, Jeewan (PW12) reached the shop of Yashwant Singh (PW13) where he found his father Prem Dass in semiconscious condition with bleeding profusely. They called the driver Ashok Kumar (PW2) with his Maruti Van and took the injured Prem Dass to the police post at Sinhunta and lodged a report. Accordingly, FIR No. 45 of 2004 (Ext. PW.6/A) was registered.

4. Police sent the injured Prem Dass to Primary Health Centre, Sihunta where Dr. Parveen Kumar (PW4) attended him and issued Medico Legal Certificate (Ext. PW4/A). As his condition was getting deteriorated, he was referred to Rajinder Prasad Medical College (RPMC), Dharmshala for better treatment, however, on the way it was noticed that the victim was not responding to the calls of his son Jeevan. Sensing something wrong, he was brought back to Dr. Praveen Kumar (PW4), who on examination, declared him to have succumbed to the injuries.

5. The Investigating Officer, PW18—Partap Singh, upon receiving the information of death of the deceased, called the photographer to get the snaps of the deceased, conducted inquest (Ext. PW11/A) and sent the dead body for postmortem. Thereafter, he prepared the site plan (Ext. PW18/A), got the injured Yashwant Singh (PW 13) medically examined and seized his bloodstained shirt (Ext.PW13/B). During the course of investigation, the I.O. visited the place of occurrence and collected bloodstained earth, stones (Ext. PW16/A), belcha (Ext.P2) and recovered one sickle (Ext.P1) and sticks (Ext.P3) from the possession of A5 vide seizure memo Ext.PW17/A. From the possession of appellant— accused No. 1 (Rangeel Singh) his bloodstained clothes were recovered vide Ex.PW14/A and sent the same for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 480

IMPORTANT POINTCase of Sudden verbal quarrel because of pending civil disputes without premeditated plan to attack deceased and injury of deceased, though not intentional, sufficient to cause death falls under section 304, Part II and not section 300.

What is the classification of the offense given the facts—whether it constitutes murder under section 300 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part II?

What are the criteria and application of Exception 4 to section 300 IPC in the context of a sudden fight and heat of passion?

What factors determine whether premeditation was present or absent in the accused’s acts and how does that affect the appropriate IPC provision and sentence?

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Case of Sudden verbal quarrel because of pending civil disputes without premeditated plan to attack deceased and injury of deceased, though not intentional, sufficient to cause death falls under section 304, Part II and not section 300.