Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Shrikrishna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1533 of 2011
Decided On : 09-01-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304, Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction and sentence – Scenario of offence was one of a free fight – There was commotion where anger-filled group of two rival parties attacked each other, and injuries were sustained by both sides – High Court was justified in its reasoning that in such circumstances, it is not possible to reason and to conclude that there was formation of unlawful assembly with common object of causing death – Accused persons, including appellant, could not be said to have acted with common intention along with others – In group fight, which broke out pursuant to a quarrel, persons from both sides were involved, and they suffered injuries on various parts of their bodies – They cannot be held guilty jointly under Section 149, IPC – At the same time, kind and nature of individual act in commission of offence would matter and guilt or otherwise of accused would have to be accordingly ascertained and established – There was a single blow with a blunt object on head of deceased, which was cause of his death – High Court was correct in its approach in holding appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC by assessing individual role on his part – Degree of offence in facts and circumstances of case, could not be said to be partaking offence of murder under Section 302, but offence committed would be punishable under Section 304 Part II, IPC – Impugned judgment and order of High Court convicting appellant for offence under Section 304 Part II, IPC is justified and warrants no interference – Appellant is more than 80 years of age at present – Total period of incarceration of appellant comes to six years and three months – Sentence of appellant reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 6 and 6.1)
Facts of the case:
Trial convicted appellant along with other accused persons for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant came to be sentenced for life imprisonment with hard labour for offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. He was convicted for rigorous imprisonment for three years, one year, and two years for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and 147, IPC respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence as above by preferring an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. High Court altered conviction of appellant from under Section 302, IPC to Section 304, Part II, IPC, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three months. The aggrieved appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court against conviction and sentence imposed on him by High Court.
Findings of Court:
Since appellant is an old and aged person, and in December of his life, it would be harsh and inadvisable to send him behind bars again at this stage. Courts are not supposed to be insensitive. Therefore, in view of advanced age of appellant and considering totality of facts and circumstances, while upholding conviction of appellant under Section 304, Part II, IPC, sentence of appellant is reduced to what is already undergone, to be substituted accordingly.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a scenario of a group fight where injuries were inflicted on both sides, and the court emphasized that the nature of individual acts in such conflicts is crucial in determining guilt or innocence (!) (!) .
The court clarified that in a free fight with mutual injuries, it is not appropriate to establish a common unlawful assembly or common intention among all participants, and each accused's individual role must be assessed separately (!) (!) .
The evidence demonstrated that the appellant, during the group altercation, used a lathi to strike the head of the deceased, Ram Singh, which directly caused fatal head injuries confirmed by medical examination and post-mortem report (!) (!) (!) .
The medical evidence established that a single blow with a blunt object was the cause of death, and injuries sustained by the appellant were consistent with injuries inflicted during the same fight (!) (!) (!) .
The court recognized that the appellant acted in the heat of the moment, during a spontaneous quarrel, and in the midst of a group clash, which suggests the absence of premeditation (!) (!) .
The appellant's defense of private defense was considered, but the court noted that the injuries inflicted, and the circumstances, indicated a level of knowledge that the act could cause death, leading to a conviction under culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II) (!) (!) .
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part II, acknowledging that the appellant's actions, though not premeditated, involved knowledge of the likely lethal outcome due to the nature of the weapon and injuries (!) .
Given the appellant's advanced age (over 80 years), the court took into account the total incarceration period and the circumstances, and decided that further imprisonment would be harsh. Consequently, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, effectively releasing him (!) (!) .
The appeal was dismissed with the modification that the appellant's sentence be commuted to the time already served, considering his age and the circumstances of the case (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that in cases of spontaneous fights and sudden quarrels, the absence of premeditation and the nature of the act are critical factors in determining the appropriate charge and punishment (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
The Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basoda, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1993, by judgment and order dated 9th December, 1997, convicted the appellant – Shrikrishna – original accused no.4, along with other accused persons for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 324 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant came to be sentenced for life imprisonment with hard labour for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. He was convicted for rigorous imprisonment for three years, one year, and two years for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and 147, IPC respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence as above by preferring an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court altered the conviction of the appellant from under Section 302, IPC to Section 304, Part II, IPC, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for three months. The aggrieved appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court against the conviction and sentence imposed on him as above by the High Court.
3. First Information Report No.181 of 1992 came to be registered with the police station concerned. As per the prosecution case, on 10.12.1992 at about 6 p.m. at Village Dudankhedi, a quarrel took place between the son of the appellant herein and the son of one Ram Singh. It was stated that the said Ram Singh had gone to the house of the appellant to complain as to why the appellant's son had beaten Gowardhan Singh - son of Ram Singh. At that time, other accused persons assembled at the place with a common criminal object. It was the case that the co-accused named Ajab Singh and Lakhan Singh had been holding axes (Farsa) in their hands, whereas the others, including the appellant, had been holding lathis.
3.1 It was the case that the accused persons assaulted Ram Singh with the respective weapons they had been wielding with an intention to kill Ram Singh. Upon hearing the cries of Ram Singh, his son - Gowardhan Singh (PW- 8), Bahadur Singh (PW-1), Narayan Singh (PW-9), and Swaroop Singh (PW-10) reached the place. There were three other persons also, named Ajuddhibai, Gambhir Singh, and Najim Singh, who reached the place of offence and it was alleged that they were also assaulted by the accused persons and suffered bodily injuries. These persons did not, however, enter the witness box.
3.2 Gowardhan Singh (PW-8) lodged the First Information Report No. 181 of 1992 (Ex. P-19), before the Police at Shahabad Police Station. The case was registered against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, and 307, IPC. The injured Ram Singh and other injured persons were sent for medical examination. Ram Singh died on 11.12.1992 while receiving medical treatment. In view of the same, the police converted the case under Section 302, IPC.
3.3 A cross-First Information Report No. 182 of 1992 was also lodged before the same Police Station by the appellant - Shrikrishna against the other 16 persons for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 506, IPC. The allegations in the said FIR were inter alia that Najim Singh and Parvat Singh were armed with Farsa (axe) and the others had lathis. It was alleged that Najim Singh hit the appellant on the head which the appellant took hold of in his hand and that Ram Singh also assaulted the appellant with lathi, inflicting blow on the left side of the head. According to the allegation in this cross-FIR, the appellant fell down and shouted. The plea put forward by the appellant was that as he was attacked, he acted in his own defence, thus raising the plea of private defence.
3.4 The prosecution examined 14 witnesses, amongst whom included Bahadur Singh (PW-1), Khushilal (PW-4), Gowardhan Singh (PW
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – In a group fight, kind and nature of individual act in commission of offence would matter and guilt or otherwise of accused would have to be accordingly as....
cCnduct of the appellant, from the evidence led by the prosecution itself, indicates that neither was there any premeditation nor an intention to kill the deceased.
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court held that the accused committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of premeditated intent to kill amidst a sudden quarrel, justifying a conviction under Section 30....
The court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, establishing that the incident arose from sudden provocation and was not premeditated.
Unintentional homicide committed in a sudden quarrel without any premeditation is not murder.
Fatal blow inflicted on head of victim with great force will constitute offence of murder.
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
