Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 722

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, JJ.
Mahesh Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2019, Criminal Appeal No. 7611 of 2025
Decided On : 23-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ritesh Singh
For the Respondent: G.A. Ravindra Sharma

When a homicide occurs in a sudden, unpremeditated fight during a heat of passion, without the perpetrator taking undue advantage or acting in an unusually cruel manner, the offence qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attracting punishment under Section 304 (Part-I) rather than Section 302.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 304 (Part-I) - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Exception 4 to Section 300 - Sudden fight, heat of passion, absence of pre-meditation, and lack of undue advantage - Applicability of exception in cases of sudden scuffle. (Paras 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 49)

(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Appellate court scrutiny - Re-evaluation of conviction - Conversion of conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Factors determining intention and degree of offence - Nature of weapon, part of body affected, and circumstances of the encounter. (Paras 41, 42, 47)

Facts of the case:
The incident arose from a financial dispute and an alleged attempt of sexual assault at the home of the accused. The deceased arrived at the premises, leading to a heated argument and physical struggle. Family members of the accused intervened. The deceased sustained a gunshot wound and multiple incised wounds during the brawl. Medical evidence confirmed the cause of death. The trial court initially convicted the accused for murder, which was challenged on the grounds of lack of intent and the sudden nature of the event.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the prosecution proved the occurrence of the incident and the participation of the accused. However, the evidence suggested the absence of pre-meditation and intent to commit cold-blooded murder. The court found that the incident happened in a sudden, unpremeditated fight triggered by a heat of passion. The accused did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner beyond the sudden struggle, thereby qualifying the offence under the provided legal exception.

Issues: Whether the incident constituted murder under Section 302 or fell under the exception of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as defined in Section 304, Part-I, of the Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an injury is inflicted during a sudden and unpremeditated fight in a heat of passion, and the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the culpability is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Penal Code.

Result: Appeals partly allowed; conviction modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, with sentences reduced to the period already undergone.

Table of Content
1. consolidation and procedural background of the criminal appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. factual background, prosecution evidence, and defense claims. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
3. summary of rival arguments regarding conviction and motive. (Para 33 , 34)
4. court verifies prosecution's evidence and occurrence details. (Para 35 , 36)
5. applicability of exception 4 to section 300 ipc for sudden fight. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
6. order converting conviction from section 302 to 304 part-i ipc. (Para 50 , 51 , 52)

JUDGMENT :

JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

1. Since these criminal appeals arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and order. Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2019 is being treated as a leading case.

2. Heard Shri R.N. Nigam, Advocate assisted by Shri Ritesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Alok Kumar Singh and Shri Muniraj Mehrotra, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

3. The validity and sustainability of the judgment and order dated 11.1.2019 passed by the 9^th Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 391 of 2019 ( State Vs. Ram Singh and others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 913 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC, Police Station Roza, District Shahjahanpur and judgment and order dated 1.5.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.43, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 247 of 2018 ( State Vs. Amit Singh ) arising out of Case Crime No. 913 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC, Police Station Roza, District Shahjahanpur have been challenged by way of instant criminal appeals. Vide judgment and order dated 11.1.2019 the appellants Mahesh Singh, Aarti Singh, Vitana Devi and Shivam Singh @ Sumit Kumar Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The accused appellant Mahesh Singh was also convicted in Session Trial No. 392 of 2016, case crime no. 953 of 2016, under Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

4. Since the accused appellant Amit Singh was absconding, his trial was separated and vide judgment and order dated 1.5.2025 he had been convicted in Session Trial No. 247 of 2013, case crime no. 913 of 2013 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

5. All sentences were directed to run concurrently with default clause.

6. Accused Vedpal had expired during trial, therefore, trial against him was abated.

7. The prosecution story, in brief, as unfolded by the informant Kuldeep Kaur wife of Mangal Singh, resident of Handa Colony, Village Ahmadpur Nyazpur, police station Roza, District Shahjahanpur in the First Information Report (in short ‘FIR’) is that in the Panchayat Election of 2015, Vitana Devi, wife of Mahesh Singh, was a candidate for the post of Gram Pradhan. Vishal Singh, son of the informant, was supporting her. During the elections, Vishal Singh started visiting Mahesh Singh's house, where he became acquainted with Mahesh Singh's daughter, and the two fell in love. Upon their request, Vishal Singh lent Mahesh Singh and his family Rs. 1,50,000/-. About fifteen days prior to the incident, Vishal asked them to return the said money. Due to this, Mahesh Singh and his family were