1. Culpable homicide — death by sickle injuries during sudden quarrel over intoxication — conviction under Section 302 IPC appealed. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 935
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, DEVENDRA SINGH-I, JJ.
Dharmendra @ Chandra Prakash - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
JAIL APPEAL No. - 192 of 2022
Decided On : 03-02-2026
Important Points
The court held that fatal injuries caused during a sudden, unpremeditated fight in a heat of passion, without undue advantage or cruelty, fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, qualifying the offence as culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC) rather than murder (Section 302 IPC).
Subject
Criminal Law - Offences Affecting Life (Homicide)
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 300, 302 and 304 - Exception 4 to Section 300 - Murder versus Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Conversion of sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I - Where an act is committed during a sudden fight without premeditation, in a heat of passion, and without the assailant taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner, the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is applicable. (Paras 26, 32)
(B) Intention and Predetermination - To determine whether an offence falls under Section 302, 304 Part-I, or 304 Part-II, the court must decide the pivotal question of intention with care and caution. Absence of motive, premeditation, or revenge in a sudden altercation may lead to the conclusion that the offence does not amount to murder. (Para 33)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife with a sickle (Hansia) on her face and neck. The incident occurred following altercations regarding the appellant's habit of consuming intoxicants. Witnesses testified that the appellant assaulted the deceased after a sudden quarrel. The postmortem report attributed the cause of death to shock and haemorrhage resulting from antemortem injuries.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the incident took place over a petty dispute regarding the consumption of intoxicants. The act was a result of a sudden fight without premeditation, occurring in a heat of passion. It was further noted that the appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner, as he did not inflict additional injuries after the deceased fell.
Issues: The main issue was whether the offence committed by the appellant should be classified as murder under Section 302 IPC or as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, specifically invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the criteria for Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC—sudden fight, lack of premeditation, heat of passion, and absence of undue advantage or cruelty—were satisfied. While the injuries were sufficient to cause death, the circumstances indicated an intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death rather than a premeditated intent to murder. Consequently, the offence falls under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and modified to Section 304 Part-I IPC; sentence altered to ten years rigorous imprisonment.
(B) Intention and Predetermination - To determine whether an offence falls under Section 302, 304 Part-I, or 304 Part-II, the court must decide the pivotal question of intention with care and caution. Absence of motive, premeditation, or revenge in a sudden altercation may lead to the conclusion that the offence does not amount to murder. (Para 33)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife with a sickle (Hansia) on her face and neck. The incident occurred following altercations regarding the appellant's habit of consuming intoxicants. Witnesses testified that the appellant assaulted the deceased after a sudden quarrel. The postmortem report attributed the cause of death to shock and haemorrhage resulting from antemortem injuries.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the incident took place over a petty dispute regarding the consumption of intoxicants. The act was a result of a sudden fight without premeditation, occurring in a heat of passion. It was further noted that the appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner, as he did not inflict additional injuries after the deceased fell.
Issues: The main issue was whether the offence committed by the appellant should be classified as murder under Section 302 IPC or as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, specifically invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the criteria for Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC—sudden fight, lack of premeditation, heat of passion, and absence of undue advantage or cruelty—were satisfied. While the injuries were sufficient to cause death, the circumstances indicated an intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death rather than a premeditated intent to murder. Consequently, the offence falls under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and modified to Section 304 Part-I IPC; sentence altered to ten years rigorous imprisonment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : From Jail, Harish Chandra Tiwari.
For the Respondent: A.G.A.
For the Appellant : From Jail, Harish Chandra Tiwari.
For the Respondent: A.G.A.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant seeks conversion from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC citing absence of premeditation and heat of passion; State opposes. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Evidence shows sudden fight over intoxication without premeditation or cruel conduct; no undue advantage taken, so Exception 4 to Section 300 applies. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
4. For Exception 4 to Section 300, sudden fight, no premeditation, heat of passion, and no undue advantage or cruelty must be satisfied; causing fatal injury without these leads to Section 304. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 41 )
5. Appeal partly allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, altered to Section 304 Part-I IPC with rigorous imprisonment of ten years; release if completed. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 )
6. When can Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight) apply to reduce murder to culpable homicide?
Exception 4 applies when four requirements are met: sudden fight, no premeditation, act in heat of passion, and no undue advantage or cruel behavior. Cause of quarrel is irrelevant. (Para 26 , 32 )
7. Does a fatal injury always preclude the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?
No; fatal injuries do not automatically mean cruel or unusual conduct. If no further injury is inflicted after the victim falls and the act is in sudden quarrel, Exception 4 may apply. (Para 30 , 31 )
8. How does the absence of premeditation and heat of passion affect the classification of homicide under Sections 302 and 304 IPC?
If the homicide occurs without premeditation during a sudden quarrel in heat of passion without cruelty, it falls under Section 304 Part I rather than Section 302 murder. (Para 34 , 39 , 41 )
9. Is motive essential to prove murder under Section 302 IPC?
No; the court noted absence of motive and still considered classification under Section 304 based on other factors like sudden fight, not requiring motive for altering conviction. (Para 18 , 39 )
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by appellant-Dharmendra alias Chandra Prakash against a judgment and order dated 08.06.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 336 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 302 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo additional imprisonment of one year.
Brief Facts of the case
2. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present criminal appeal, in short compass, are that a written report was handed over by the first informant Rohit Kumar, son of Kailash Narain at police station Uldan at 01:30 AM on 23.07.2014 that on 22.07.2017 at about 08:30 PM, his cousin Dharmendra (hereinafter referred to as the accused-appellant), son of Vishwanath Srivas, who is permanent resident of village Dhabari, police station Tahrauli, district Jhansi and is presently residing with his grand-maternal father (Nana) at village Rajpura, police station Uldan, district Jhansi. Since accused used to consume intoxicant, there had been altercations between husband and wife. On hearing the shrieks from inside the house of the appellant, when he along with Jugul Kishore and Lalta Prasad went inside the house, they saw the accused assaulting his wife-Smt Neetu Devi from sickle (Hansia) on her face and neck. The FIR further recounts that on arrival of the witnesses, accused fled away with bloodstained Hansia (sickle) and in bloodstained clothes, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. The information in respect of the aforesaid incident was communicated to the father of the deceased, who also arrived at the spot. On account of the injuries received, Smt. Neetu Devi (hereinafter referred to the deceased) succumbed to the injuries.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered at Case Crime No. 80 of 2014, under Section 302 IPC, police station Uldan, district Jhansi.
4. After the registration of the first information report, the law set into motion and investigation of the case was taken up by PW-7, Inspector Satyendra Singh, who after completing necessary formalities, submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC. Bloodstained sickle and bloodstained clothes of the accused were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra.
5. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as ST No. 336 of 2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC&ST Act, Jhansi vide order dated 15.09.2015 framed the charges against the accused- appellant under Section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to him.
6. To bring home guilt of the appellant beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, out of which PW-1, Rohit Kumar is the first informant of the case, PW-2, Jugul Kishore, PW-3, Lalta Prasad are the witnesses of facts, remaining witnesses are formal one.
7. PW-1, Rohit Kumar is the first informant of the case. In his examination-in-chief, he has reiterated the versions given in the FIR. He further deposed that on 23.07.2014, on the pointing out of the accused, the investigating officer recovered weapon of assault, i.e. bloodstained sickle (Hansia) and bloodstained clothes of the accused, on which he put his signature, which he proved as Ext. Ka-2 and Ka-3. He was also the witness of inquest. He also stated that accused-appellant is his cousin and he along with several persons of the village have seen the accused committing the murder of the deceased.
8. PW-2, Jugul Kishore in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he knows the appellant well. He used to live in a rented house in his neighbourhood. Accused- appellant and the deceased used to quarrel over intoxication by
