SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 1290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Nand Prabha Shukla, JJ.
Kali Prasad Misra and another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 1483 of 1984
Decided On : 13-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Satish Trivedi, Manoj Kumar Singh, P.K. Singh
For the Respondent: Saurabh Chaturvedi

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 304 IPC.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 - The appeal was filed against conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC for murder, but the court found that the act was committed without premeditation during a sudden quarrel, thus reducing the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC - The use of lathi against the deceased, who was an uncle to the accused, was provoked by a family dispute - The evidence established that the injury was not inflicted with the intention to kill but at the heat of passion, leading to death due to excessive bleeding without immediate medical care. (Paras 46, 50, 52)

(B) Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder - Intention and knowledge as to likelihood of death - The court clarified the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on the intention and circumstances surrounding the act, highlighting that a lathi blow does not automatically qualify as a deadly weapon given the context and relationship of the parties involved. (Paras 19, 50)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) The IPC framework distinguishing murder (Section 300) from culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304, including Part I and Part II) is explained. - (!) (!) Prosecution details and defense arguments regarding lack of premeditation and heat of passion are discussed. - (!) (!) (!) The trial court’s findings and the appellate discussion on whether the act constitutes murder or culpable homicide. - (!) (!) Numerous precedents and principles (e.g., Virsa Singh, Joseph, Pappu, Gurmail Singh, Jugut Ram, Anbazhagan) are cited to analyze intention vs. knowledge and the application of Exception 4. - (!) (!) The judgment ultimately alters conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II for the accused, with specific sentencing. - (!) (!) (!) The elements of "culpable homicide" and the tests for determining whether an act is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. - (!) (!) The court discusses factors for appropriate sentencing and proportionality.

What is the appropriate classification of the death under IPC: murder under Section 302/34 or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I or Part II?

What is the role of exceptions to Section 300 IPC (especially Exception 4) in converting a murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on heat of passion or sudden quarrel?

How should sentencing be determined when the acts were committed in heat of passion without premeditation, considering factors for proper punishment and proportionality?


Table of Content
1. establishment of case facts and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of the case and incident (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments from the defense and prosecution (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. court's analysis of facts, evidence, and legal principles (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 19 , 20 , 24 , 49 , 50 , 51)
5. legal definitions of culpable homicide and murder (Para 18 , 22 , 23)
6. application of law to facts and definitions under ipc. (Para 21)
7. final judgment and sentencing (Para 52 , 53)

JUDGMENT :

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Shri PK Singh, learned counsel for the accused appellant No.1, Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Amresh Singh and Shri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the informant and Shri K.P. Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. There are two appellants in this appeal. Appellant no.2 Sheo Shanker Misra has died and the appeal qua the accused appellant no.2 Sheo Shanker Misra has been abated by order dated 30.08.2018. Thus, the appeal now survives only for accused appellant no.1 Kali Prasad Misra.

Facts:-

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the informant eyewitness PW-1, Smt. Ram Adhari Devi wife of the deceased Hinch Narayan Mishra, resident of village Pure Khudi, P.S. Handiya, District Allahabad lodged a first information report (Chik No.162) on 23.5.1980 at about 05:00 a.m. with respect to an incident dated 22.05.1980 of about 06:00 p.m. being Case Crime No.186/10/1980 under Section 304 IPC alleging that her Devar Lakh Narayan Mishra and two nephews namely Kali Prasad and Sheo Sankar, both sons of Ram Lakhan came to call her husband for panchayat in the family dispute but her husband refused to go in panchayat and there upon all the aforesaid three accused persons started abusing and the accused persons Kali Prasad and Sheo Sankar beaten her deceased husband with their lathis on the pointing out of the accused Lakh Narayan Mishra to assault. Her husband fell and thereafter the accused persons fled away abusing. She took her husband and laid him in a cot at the house of the door and called Dr. Hari Vishal Singh who gave treatment but her husband died at about 10:00 p.m. When the PW-3 Mahendra Narayan Mishra, who is sister's son of the informant; came at about 02:00 a.m. in the night, she went to lodge the FIR at the police station and accordingly the FIR was registered at 05:00 a.m. on the next day, i.e. on 23.05.1980. The investigating officer came on the spot and prepared two recovery memos both dated 23.05.1980, which includes the recovery memo of taking sample of plain earth and blood stains from the spot of incident. Inquest report was prepared on 23.05.1980. In the inquest report, the Panches had opined that the deceased Hinch Narayan Mishra has died due to injuries caused on the head. The body of the deceased was sent for autopsy. As per postmortem report, following injuries were found on the body of the deceased Hinch Narayan Mishra:-

    “(1) Contusion 2" x 3/2" over the nasal bridge and below the left eye with fracture of nasal bone.

    (2) Lacerated wound transversely directed, 2" x 1/2" on the middle of skull, 8" above the root of the nose.

    (3) Contusion obliquely directed 2" x 1" over the scalp, 1" towards right of Injury No. 2.

    (4) Depressed fractured scalp, 1,1/2" x 1" with fracture of left parietal bone which was 4" above the right ear.

    (5) On the opening of ante-mortem injury No. 4, plenty of denatured blood came out.

    (6) Contusion 2" x 2" over the right fore-erm.

    (7) Contusion 2" x 2" over the right palm.

    (8) Contusion 2" x 1, 1/2" over the outer and lower aspect of left leg, 4" above the ankle joint.”

4. The chargesheet dated 05.07.1980 was submitted by the police against all the aforesaid three accused persons under Section 304 I.P.C. The Vth Additional Session Judge, Allahabad framed the charges on 06.05.1982 under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. against all the three accused persons and in alternative under Section 304 /34 I.P.C

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top