1. Whether the act constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. (Para 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1202
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Mariappan - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. By Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3598 of 2023 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 15192 of 2023, Diary No. 14840 of 2023
Decided On : 24-11-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Navneet Dugar, Adv. Mr. Subham Kothari, Adv. Ms. Preethi G, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Navneet Dugar, Adv. Mr. Subham Kothari, Adv. Ms. Preethi G, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Longstanding enmity over land dispute – Evidence clearly establish beyond reasonable doubt that knife injuries caused by appellant were the reason for death of deceased – Appellant had suddenly stabbed deceased during a heated verbal argument with him and not during a pre-planned attack which was carried out with sole intention of causing death of deceased – Previous enmity between appellant and deceased had been a contributory factor leading to verbal altercation but it was not the reason for accused to carry out a pre-planned fatal attack against deceased – Appellant had acted “suddenly”, in heat of passion and without a pre-planned approach to kill deceased – On same evidence Trial Court has acquitted two co-accused and convicted only appellant – Clear intent needed to prove culpable homicide amounting to murder has also not been established by prosecution – Case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part-I with sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, to be paid to victim’s family. (Paras 7, 11, 12, 13 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal assails correctness of final Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2016 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 whereby High Court has dismissed appeal of present appellant and confirmed order of conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and awarding life sentence passed on 05.10.2012 by Trial Court.
Findings of Court:
Appellant had caused only one injury whereas other accused had caused multiple injuries. However, Trial Court acquitted other two accused.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. The stabbing occurred during a sudden, heated verbal argument without premeditation, fitting the criteria for a fit of passion rather than a planned murder. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies if there was a sudden fight, no premeditation, act done in heat of passion, and no undue advantage taken. (Para 10 )
4. Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part-I IPC with a sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. What are the requirements to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?
Four requirements must be satisfied: it was a sudden fight, there was no premeditation, the act was done in a heat of passion, and the assailant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner. (Para 10 )
6. How is the distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder and not amounting to murder determined?
Classification is a matter of fact based on the nature of the offence, intention of the offender, weapon used, place and nature of injuries, existence of a premeditated mind, the persons participating, and the motive. (Para 9 )
7. Does previous enmity necessarily preclude the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?
No, previous enmity may be a contributory factor leading to a verbal altercation, but if the fatal attack was not pre-planned and occurred suddenly in the heat of passion, the exception may apply. (Para 11 )
ORDER :
Vikram Nath, J.
1. This appeal assails the correctness of the final Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant and confirmed the order of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,1[IPC] and awarding life sentence passed on 05.10.2012 by the Trial Court.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :
2.1 The case involves the offence of culpable homicide committed by the present appellant. The present appellant was accused no.1 before the Trial Court in S.C.No.177 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Session Judge, Erode District, at Bhavani. While the other two accused, i.e., accused nos.2 and 3 were acquitted of all charges by the Trial Court.
2.2 The case involves the murder of one Kolandaippam, wherein the core motive was identified as a longstanding enmity over a land dispute between the deceased and the three accused. Prior to the incident, there were several confrontations and threats, notably 3½ years earlier on the disputed land, and a subsequent altercation involving the deceased's wife and Pappa, the sister of the first accused. These events, including a police-compromised complaint by the deceased's wife, intensified the hostility.
2.3 On 17th March 2009, around 6:00 p.m., at Koil Kaadu Chithanattu Salai in Neringipettai Village, the deceased, along with P.Ws.2, 3, and 5, was confronted by the accused. Heated arguments took place between the two parties. During the quarrel, accused nos.1 and 2 stabbed Kolandaippam multiple times with soori-knives, while accused no.3, though armed with a spade handle, did not inflict injuries but facilitated in the attack. P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased, witnessed this event. Following the attack, the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital at Bhavani, where Dr. (Mrs.) Janatha pronounced him dead and a complaint was lodged at the Ammapettai Police Station, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC.
2.4 The investigation, led initially by Subbiah (P.W.13) and later by A. Rajendran (P.W.14), involved meticulous collection of evidence. This included bloodstained earth from the crime scene, preparation of an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch, and the recovery of the murder weapons. The autopsy conducted by Dr. Poornachandrika (P.W.8) revealed multiple stab wounds as the cause of death, particularly noting a fatal injury to the heart.
2.5 Significant evidence contributing to the appellant’s guilt includes the recovery of the murder weapon (a soori-knife) and bloodstained clothes following his voluntary confession. Additionally, the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, especially P.W.1, and the forensic evidence linking the blood group from the material objects to the deceased, played a crucial role. Despite some inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts, the overwhelming evidence pointed towards the accused no.1's direct involvement in the assault.
2.6 Upon filing of charge sheet by the respondent police, a session case was registered before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavani in S.C.No.177 of 2010. The Trial Court taking cognizance of the offence, framed two charges. Charge against the accused Nos.1 to 3 was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Charge was against the accused no.3 under Section 307 IPC.
2.7 The trial involved the examination of 14 witnesses, and the presentation of 18 documents and 9 material objects. While the accused nos.2 and 3 were acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence against them, the accused no.1, i.e., the appellant herein was found guilty based on the weight of the testimonies and other documentary and material evidence. According to the Trial Court there was compelling evidence, particularly the recovery of the murder weapon and the consistency of the eyewitness testimonies, which duly proved the conviction of the
