2025 Supreme(Gau) 1277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
S.K. MEDHI, MARLI VANKUNG, JJ.
Sanjay Rajowar S/o Late Babu Rajowar - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam and Another - Respondents
Crl. Appeal Nos. 54, 61 of 2021
Decided On : 30-07-2025

Spontaneous violence arising in the heat of the moment without pre-meditation or specific intent to cause death, resulting in fatal injury to a non-vital anatomical site, constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder under Section 300.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 299, 300, 302, and 304 - Assam Medical Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2011 - Section 4 - Culpable homicide vs Murder - Distinction between intentional killing and acts resulting in death without specific intent - Applicability of exceptions under Section 300.

(B) Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Requirement of proof - Absence of pre-meditation - Heat of the moment - For a charge of murder to be sustained, prosecution must prove one of the four clauses of Section 300 - Where violence arises during a spontaneous confrontation without lethal weapons, the Court must carefully evaluate the degree of intent. (Paras 139, 140)

Facts of the case:
A mob gathered at a hospital following the death of a patient, leading to the brutal assault of medical personnel during a period of civil unrest. The victim succumbed to a hemorrhage caused by a cut to the femoral artery from a piece of broken glass. The trial court convicted the appellants for murder under Section 302 IPC, observing that the nature of the attack was fatal. The appellants appealed, arguing that there was no per-meditation, that the attack was spontaneous, and that the injury was not on a vital part of the anatomy, thereby necessitating a reduction of the charge.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that fatal injury on a non-vital part of the body, such as the thigh, resulting from a broken fragment used in the heat of a spontaneous outburst, does not satisfy the requirements to classify the offense as murder. The state failed to prove that the appellants possessed specific intent or pre-meditation to cause death.

Issues: Whether the assault leading to the death of the medical practitioner amounts to murder (Section 300) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 299), specifically considering the lack of weapons, spontaneity of the act, and absence of target-specific malice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an act resulting in death is inflicted in the heat of passion without pre-meditated planning or intended use of deadly weapons in vital areas, the offense does not constitute murder. The court emphasized that the lack of specialized knowledge regarding anatomical vulnerabilities and the occurrence of the act during a sudden, reflexive mob reaction relegates the crime to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the second part of Section 304.

Result: Appeals partly allowed. Convictions under Section 302 altered to Section 304 Part II, with a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment.