Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 2407
DELHI HIGH COURT
S.Ravindra Bhat, S.P.Garg, JJ.
Yogeshwar @ Babloo - Appellant
Versus
State - Resopndent
Crl. A. No. 1170 of 2011
Decided On : 14-02-2012
For the Appellant :Deepak Vohra, Advocate., For the State: Sanjay Lao, APP.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to determine whether an offense constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Headnote:
MURDER - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC - 300, Murder.- Exception 4. - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. - The judgment discusses the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC in the context of a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC. The court analyzes the nature of the altercation, the relationship between the accused and the deceased, the sudden quarrel, and the absence of premeditation to determine that the offense falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for committing an offense punishable under Section 302 IPC for inflicting injuries on the deceased, his uncle, during a sudden quarrel at the deceased's residence. The appellant claimed that he had no intention to murder his uncle and that the injuries were inflicted in a fit of rage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, as the altercation occurred without premeditation in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
Issues: The key issue was whether the offense constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles outlined in various case laws to determine that the offense fell under culpable homicide not amounting to murder, considering the nature of the altercation, absence of premeditation, and the sudden quarrel.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was set aside, and he was convicted for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by appellant-Yogeshwar @ Babloo against the judgment and order on sentence dated 26.02.2011 in Sessions Case No. 91/2009 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
2. Criminal law was set in motion at around 11:08 P.M. on 11.08.2009 when DD Entry No. 38/A was recorded by ASI Suresh Chand at PS Anand Parbat to the effect that a quarrel was going on near Ramjas Park, Baljeet Nagar, Punjabi Basti and an individual was injured in the said quarrel.
3. The investigation was assigned to ASI Suresh Chand who, with constable Surender reached the spot and was informed that the injured had already been taken to RML hospital. He (ASI Suresh Chand) obtained the MLC of Lakhan (since declared dead) at the hospital. Pradeep Sharma (PW-9), the deceased's brother made statement Ex.PW9/A to the police and informed that accused-Yogeshwar had come at Lakhan's house at about 8:00 P.M and a quarrel took place between the two there. The accused inflicted injuries on the head and thigh with an iron rod on Lakhan and he succumbed to the injuries.
4. ASI Suresh Chand made an endorsement on Pradeep Sharma's statement and sent the rukka through constable Surender for registration of the FIR No. 122/2009 under Section 302 IPC. During the course of investigation, IO prepared site plan; got the site photographed; lifted the blood smeared earth from the spot; arrested the accused, recovered the weapon of offence i.e. iron rod at his instance; recorded the statements of witnesses conversant with the facts, collected the postmortem report and sent the exhibits to FSL, Rohini for expert opinion. After conclusion of the investigations, the accused was charge-sheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied his hand in the crime and pleaded that he was falsely implicated by PW-9 (Pradeep Sharma) as he wanted to usurp his uncle Lakhan's jhuggi.
6. After appreciation of the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for committing offence under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved, the appellant has appealed to this Court.
7. During the hearing of arguments, appellant's counsel, on instructions, opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court to the extent the causing of injuries on the deceased's person by the appellant. It was, however, contended that the appellant had no intention to murder his uncle Lakhan as the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden in which he lost his cool and inflicted the injuries in a fit of rage. The appellant was aged 18 years at the time of incident and was not mature enough to understand the consequences of his act.
8. Learned APP argued that the injuries inflicted by the appellant on the vital organs of the deceased were intentional. Intention can develop at the spur of moment. Nature of injuries on the deceased fully proved his intention to cause his death. At the time of causing injuries the accused had declared that he will kill him.
9. We have perused the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on record and have considered the submissions of the parties carefully.
10. In view of the concession given, we confirm the findings of the trial court where he was held liable for inflicting injuries on Lakhan.
14. This takes us to the alternative plea taken by appellant's counsel that the offence would not be murder but would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder and would fall within Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC, which reads as under:-
“300, Murder.-
Exception 1. - xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Exception 2. - xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Exception 3. - xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Excep
