1. Whether the incident occurred during a sudden fight without premeditation, warranting conversion of conviction from Section 302 to Section 304, IPC. (Para 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 381
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Mohd. Ahsan – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2265 of 2024, Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5460 of 2024, D. No. 36602 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Homicide committed in a sudden fight, in heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel, is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
Homicide committed in a sudden fight, in heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel, is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.302, S.304 Part I, S.304 Part II
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Incident occurred without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel – Evidence would also not show that accused-Appellant had either taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Present case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC – Conviction of accused-Appellant under Section 302 of IPC altered to one under Part I of Section 304 of IPC and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for a period of three months. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges judgment and order dated 09th October, 2013 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 233-DB of 2007 wherein Division Bench dismissed Criminal Appeal preferred by Appellant and upheld order of conviction and sentence as recorded by Trial Court.
Findings of Court:
Period already spent by the accused-Appellant in custody shall be set-off against sentence.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR Mr. K.K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mohit Raj, Adv. Mr. Hemant Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, D.A.G. Ms. Nidhi Narwal, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shanti Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Bhavishya Ranjan, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR Mr. K.K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mohit Raj, Adv. Mr. Hemant Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, D.A.G. Ms. Nidhi Narwal, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shanti Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Bhavishya Ranjan, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. The incident occurred without premeditation in a sudden fight and heat of passion, without the accused taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner. (Para 13 , 14 )
3. An act committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and upon a sudden quarrel falls under Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC. (Para 14 )
4. Conviction under Section 302, IPC altered to Part I of Section 304, IPC, with sentence reduced to eight years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. (Para 15 )
5. When does a murder conviction get converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC?
A conviction is converted when the court finds the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and upon a sudden quarrel, provided the accused did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. What role does the absence of premeditation play in distinguishing between Section 302 and Section 304 of the IPC?
The absence of premeditation, coupled with a sudden quarrel and heat of passion, removes the act from the ambit of murder under Section 302 and places it under the exceptions of Section 300, leading to a conviction under Section 304. (Para 13 , 14 )
7. How does the court evaluate whether an accused acted in a cruel or unusual manner under Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC?
The court examines the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the fight to determine if the accused took undue advantage or acted in a manner beyond what was necessary in the heat of the moment. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 09th October, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 233-DB of 2007 wherein the Division Bench dismissed the Criminal Appeal preferred by the Appellant Mohd. Ahsan and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 25th January, 2007 as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 09 of 2005.
3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
3.1 On 18th August, 2005, at about 01:00 a.m., the SHO of Police Station City Jagadhri, namely, Jai Singh (PW-13), received telephonic information from P.P. Rakshak Vihar about the death of one Vikrant @ Chintu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) who had been admitted in Civil Hospital, Jagadhri in an injured state. On the receipt of the information, PW-13 along with several other police personnel rushed to the said hospital wherefrom PW-13 obtained the medico-legal report (Ex.PC) of the deceased and recorded the statement of Sh. Devi Dayal Sharma (PW-10), the de-facto complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, the First Information Report (“FIR” for short) being FIR No. 373 of 2005 was registered at Police Station, City Jagadhri for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short), against the present Appellant. Subsequently, the post mortem of the deceased was conducted on 18th August, 2005 wherein it was concluded that the cause of death was shock due to massive haemorrhage in the left plural cavity which was sufficient to cause death under normal circumstances.
3.2 The prosecution case is that on 17th August, 2005 at about 11-11:30 p.m. the de-facto complainant (PW-10) had been taking food at Shiv Dhaba which was situated opposite Bus Stop, Jagadhri, in the company of Charan Singh and Rajiv Kumar (PW-12), when another group of four men, namely, Neeraj Gulati (PW-11), Kamal Kumar, Naresh Kumar and the deceased arrived at the Dhaba to partake their meals. To attract the attention of the waiter, the deceased called the waiter by use of the word “hello.” This gesture irked another customer i.e. the present Appellant who was seated in a corner of the Dhaba, smoking a cigarette. The Appellant initially abused the deceased in the name of his sister and thereafter rose from his seat, walked up to the deceased and grappled with him. During the said quarrel, the Appellant and the deceased went out of the Dhaba where they were separated by the complainant (PW-10) and his companions. However, refusing to relent, the Appellant rushed to his car and pulled out a glass bottle which he broke on the bonnet of his car and thereafter proceeded to inflict five injuries on the body of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell to the ground bleeding, after which the Appellant fled from the scene. Subsequently, Neeraj Gulati (PW-11) and the others present at the Dhaba placed the deceased on the motorbike of PW-11 and rushed him to Aggarwal Hospital, but owing to the unavailability of a doctor, the deceased was subsequently taken to the Civil Hospital, Jagadhri, where he eventually succumbed to his injuries.
3.3 Upon the conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same came to be committed to the Sessions Judge.
3.4 Charges came to be framed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3.5 The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. In his defence, the Appellant stated that it was a case of false implication since he had not used the glass bottle to cause any injury to the deceased; whereas, it was the deceased who
