The judgment established the relevance of sudden provocation and lack of premeditation in determining the intention to commit murder, leading to the conversion of the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC to Part I of Section 304 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Gavai, J. - The appeal challenges the judgment dated 23rd June 2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the Order dated 4/5th May 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The prosecution story in brief is thus:

The appellant was working in a company known as "Top Security" and he was posted as a security guard at Mannat Bungalow owned by a film star, namely, Shahrukh Khan. The deceased Chandrapratap Singh and other security guards were also deployed at the said bungalow. On the night of 14th August 2006, deceased Chandrapratap Singh questioned the accused as to why was he sitting in the chair and whether his revolver was filled with bullets or not. He also asked the accused as to whether his fire arm was working or not. The accused in anger held Chandrapratap Singh with collar and then pulled the trigger of the revolver which was pointed at his chest due to which Chandrapratap Singh fell down. Sandeep Dharmaji Lakhan, another security guard posted at the same bungalow, lodged the First Information Report, on the basis of which, C.R. No. 398 of 2006 came to be registered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Mumbai. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, it came to be committed to the learned Sessions Judge.

Charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted the appellant and passed an order of conviction and sentenced as aforesaid. In appeal, the High Court confirmed the same.

3. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that, from the perusal of the prosecution witness itself, it would reveal that the appellant did not have any intention to commit the murder of the deceased. He submits that in an altercation between the appellant and the deceased, the appellant on being provoked by the deceased lost his control and unintentionally shot the deceased.

4. Mr. Singh therefore, submits that the present case at the most would fall under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.

5. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra vehemently opposes the appeal. He submits that the security guard who was armed with a licensed revolver is expected to exercise due caution. He further submits that on mere asking by the deceased as to whether his revolver was working or not, the security guard was not expected to shoot point blank at one of his colleagues. He relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju Alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444.

6. It would be relevant to refer to the judgment in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju (supra) on which Mr. Chitnis relies:

"29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attemp