2026 Supreme(All) 634

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, JJ.
Rinku @ Amrish – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2380 of 2019 
Decided On : 22-05-2026

An offense committed in a sudden fight without premeditation, even when a fatal blow is inflicted on a vital body part in the heat of passion, constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part I, rather than murder under Section 302.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300, 302, and 304 - Culpable homicide vs. Murder - Application of Exception 4 - Essential requirements for sudden fight - Absence of premeditation, heat of passion, and lack of cruelty or undue advantage. (Paras 56, 64)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of injured witness - Special status in law - Evidence holds high evidentiary value due to the built-in guarantee of presence - Not to be discarded unless there are major contradictions or material discrepancies - Quality of evidence prevails over quantity. (Paras 39, 40, 44)

(C) Sentencing - Determination of quantum of punishment - Requirement to balance aggravating and mitigating factors - Need for a corrective or deterrent approach ensuring proportionality - Just and reasonable punishment for Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. (Paras 66, 67)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for murder and related offences following the fatal stabbing of the deceased with a sharp implement. The prosecution case rested on the ocular testimony of the victim's family members who were also injured in the scuffle. The defense contended that the incident was a sudden fight, lacking premeditation, and that the prosecution case suffered from contradictions. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment. The present appeal challenges the conviction and the classification of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the testimonies of the injured witnesses were reliable and credible. It concluded that the incident transpired as a result of a sudden quarrel and scuffle, lacking any prior planning or malicious intent to kill as defined under the law. Consequently, the act was determined to fall under the ambit of Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder.

Issues: Whether the conviction for murder under Section 302 is sustainable given the circumstances of a sudden fight; whether the evidence of interested, injured witnesses is sufficient to prove guilt; and the determination of appropriate sentencing for the offense.

Ratio Decidendi: An offense committed in the heat of passion during a sudden fight, without premeditation or cruel intent, does not amount to murder. Even if a fatal blow is struck to a vital part, the lack of prior planning and the reflexive nature of the act reduce the culpability from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, warranting a modified conviction under Section 304, Part I of the Penal Code.

Result: Conviction modified to Section 304, Part I; sentence reduced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment. Appeal allowed in part.

Table of Content
1. summary of prosecution facts, charges filed, and list of evidentiary records. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. analysis of prosecution and defense witness testimonies regarding the incident. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. procedural history, status of prior appeals, and grounds for the current appeal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. appellants' contentions regarding the conviction and applicability of section 304 ipc. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. state’s response and arguments justifying conviction under section 302 ipc. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. principle of evidentiary weight accorded to injured witnesses in criminal proceedings. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
7. significance of motive and the credibility of independent witness requirements. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
8. applicability of exception 4 to section 300 ipc regarding sudden fighting. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
9. modification of conviction from section 302 to section 304 part i ipc. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)

JUDGMENT :

Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the appellant-accused Rinku @ Amrish, against the Judgment and order dated 07.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, P.C. Act, Lucknow, in Sessions Trial No. 1062 of 2014 (State Vs. Rinku @ Amrish), arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 2014, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow, wherein he has been convicted for the commission of offences under Section 302, 323, 504, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.P.C.’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, and, in default, further imprisonment for six months.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded through the evidences adduced during the Trial, is succinctly narrated as under:

2.1) The complainant/P.W.-1, Smt. Satvindar Kaur, (wife of the deceased, Shri Gurpreet Singh Sethi), was running a boutique under the name and style of ‘Simiran Boutique’ situated on Natkheda Road, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Krishna Nagar, Lucknow. The appellantaccused, Rinku @ Amrish, was previously employed as a ‘tailor’ in the said boutique.

2.2) On account of alleged acts of misconduct, including that of theft and other wrongdoing in the said boutique shop, the appellant-accused was dismissed from his employment. Subsequently, the appellant-accused opened a tailoring shop in the same vicinity/complex.

2.3) On the fateful evening of 09.07.2014, at around 9:00 PM, the complainant/P.W.-1 Satvindar Kaur, along with her husband Gurpreet Singh Sethi (deceased), and her mother, Smt. Basant Kaur (P.W.-2), were present inside the boutique. Suddenly, all of them heard the distinct sound of breaking glass from outside. Upon rushing out to ascertain the cause, they found the appellant-accused Rinku @ Amrish, smashing/breaking the windshield/glass of their parked Activa scooter. When these people, in order to stop him, went near the appellant-accused, he started abusing them in filthy language and threatened to kill them. In the course of the alleged ensuing altercation/scuffle, actuated by a pre-existing grudge and with the clear intention to cause death, the appellant-accused picked up a pair of scissors and stabbed the deceased, Gurpreet Singh Sethi, once on the left side of the chest. During the said scuffle, the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 also sustained injuries while attempting to rescue the deceased and ward off the assault.

The injured Gurpreet Singh Sethi was immediately rushed to Awadh Hospital, Lucknow, where he was declared brought dead. The incident was alleged to have been occurred under sufficient street-light illumination, rendering the identification of the appel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document