Culpable homicide is not murder if committed in a fit of passion during a sudden quarrel, as determined by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 04/02/2014 rendered in Sessions Case No.69 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur whereby the respondent who is the sole accused in the said case was acquitted of the charges under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘the IPC’).

2. Originally the accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 323 and 337 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE but he was found guilty only for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 337 of the IPC and he was convicted for the said two offences and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprison for a period of one month and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 337 of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. However, he was acquitted for the charge under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

3. Facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows:

3.1. Father of the de-facto complainant has lent Rs.3,000/- to the uncle of the accused. The uncle of the accused failed to repay the said debit to the father of the de-facto complainant who is examined as PW-1. After the father of the de-facto complainant expired, the de-facto complainant has been demanding the uncle of the accused to repay the said debt of Rs.3,000/-. Inspite of his repeated demands the uncleof the accused did not repay the said amount to him. While so, on 23/05/2012, at about 10:00 p.m. in the night the accused questioned the de-facto complainant as to why he has been demanding his uncle for repayment of the money borrowed by him from his father and quarreled with him. The accused also give two slaps to the de-facto complainant during the said quarrel. The de-facto complainant informed about the said incident to his mother who is the deceased.

3.2. On the next day i.e. on 24/05/2012, at about 12:30 noon, the accused came near to the house of the de-facto complainant. At that time the deceased who is his mother questioned the accused as to why he has slapped his son when he demanded his uncle only to repay the borrowed amount from her husband. The accused got enraged and he quarreled with the deceased who is aged about 65 years at her house and in the said quarrel, the accused pushed away the deceased and the deceased went and dashed against the wall and sustained an injury on her forehead and she fell down. Thereafter it is stated that the accused has picked up a brick and beat the deceased again on her forehead. The deceased who sustained injury on her forehead on account of dashing against the wall due to the push given by the accused died on the spot instantaneously.

3.3. The de-facto complainant who is examined as PW-1 who heard shouts of her mother came out of the house and noticed the deceased fell on the ground sustaining a head injury. PW- 12 who is sister of PW-1 who is also residing in the said house at that time also heard the shouts and c