2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja, JJ
JITAN BORA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE – Respondent
CRL.A.-85/2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Himanshu Anand Gupta, Sidharth Barua, Mansi Yadav, Shekhar Anand Gupta, Navneet Kaur, Shivani Rampal, Mike Desai
For the Respondents: Aman Usman, Manvendra Yadav, Madan Mohan
A sudden quarrel without premeditation, where the deceased struck first and the appellant used a kitchen knife causing death, reduces murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC due to knowledge but no intention to kill.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 299, 300 (Exception 1 and Exception 4), 302, 304 Part II - Burden of proof - When accused seeks to bring case within exception to Section 300, burden lies upon him under Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - However, accused may rely upon prosecution evidence to discharge that burden - Distinction between culpable homicide and murder - Culpable homicide is genus, murder is species - All murders are culpable homicides but not vice versa - Three degrees of culpable homicide: first degree (murder, Section 302), second degree (Section 304 Part I), third degree (Section 304 Part II) - For application of Exception 4 to Section 300, essential ingredients: offence committed without premeditation, in sudden fight in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel, and without offender taking undue advantage or acting in cruel or unusual manner - It is immaterial which party offers provocation or commits first assault - For Exception 1: provocation must be grave and sudden; offender must be deprived of power of self-control; act must be committed in heat of passion; provocation must not be sought or voluntarily provoked by accused - Test of reasonable man applies - Where act is done with intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, offence falls under Section 304 Part I; where act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such injury, offence falls under Section 304 Part II - Multiple stab wounds on vital part (heart) may attract clause Thirdly of Section 300, but if circumstances show absence of intention to kill and lack of premeditation, conviction may be reduced to Section 304 Part II - Incident occurring on spur of moment, appellant armed with kitchen knife following deceased after quarrel, deceased first struck appellant with danda, appellant inflicted knife blows on chest and thigh - Held: no intention to cause death, but knowledge of likely death - Conviction under Section 302 converted to Section 304 Part II. (Paras 33-43)
(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court is not to substitute its view for that of trial court unless decision is perverse, illegal, or suffers from other vice - However, where trial court misapplies legal principles, appellate court can interfere. (Paras 22-32)
Facts of the case:
On 13th July 2019, around 2:00 AM, the deceased and PW-1 heard a quarrel coming from the appellant's room. The deceased went to the appellant's room to pacify the altercation between the appellant and his wife. Upon returning, the appellant followed the deceased to his room holding a kitchen knife, shouting, “tera roz-roz ka hamare kamre mein aana khatam kar doonga”. PW-1 tried to intervene but was pushed away. The deceased struck the appellant with a danda on the head. In the ensuing scuffle, the appellant inflicted multiple stab wounds on the deceased (chest, abdomen, thigh), causing death due to haemorrhagic shock. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the case fell within Exception 4 or Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the incident occurred on the spur of the moment without premeditation. The appellant had been hit on the head with a danda. The knife blows were inflicted during a sudden fight. There was no intention to cause death, but the appellant had knowledge that his act was likely to cause death. The case therefore fell under Section 304 Part II IPC. The sentence was modified to the period already undergone (over 7 years), and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable or whether the case fell within any exception to Section 300 IPC, warranting conviction under Section 304 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where the incident is sudden, without premeditation, and arises from a quarrel in which the deceased first assaulted the appellant with a danda, and the appellant used a kitchen knife in the heat of passion without intending to kill, the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, as the appellant had knowledge but no intention to cause death.
Result: Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside. Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. Sentence modified to period already undergone. Fine directions sustained. Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (Paras 44-47)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 18.02.2026 Pronounced on: 18.03.2026 + CRL.A. 85/2024 JITAN BORA ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Himanshu Anand Gupta, Mr.Sidharth Barua, Ms.Mansi Yadav, Mr. Shekhar Anand Gupta, Ms.Navneet Kaur, Ms.Shivani Rampal and Mr.Mike Desai, Advs.
versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP with Mr.Manvendra Yadav, Adv. with Insp. Madan Mohan, P.S.
GK-I, New Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
J U D G M E N T
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. The appellant has approached this Court, assailing the judgment dated 15.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-05, South- East District, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Trial Court‟) in Sessions Case No. 490/2019, titled State v. Jitan @ Jitan Bora, arising out of FIR No. 134/2019, registered at Police Station Greater Kailash, New Delhi, under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the „IPC‟), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section
302 of the IPC for the offence of murder.
2. The appellant also challenges the order on sentence dated 19.10.2023, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
3. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that on 13th July 2019, at around 04:53 A.M., upon receipt of information vide DD No. 7A at Police Station Greater Kailash, Constable Asif/PW-11 reached the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), where the victim, Sanjeev Pandey, S/o Sh. Ramnath Pandey, with an alleged history of physical assault, was undergoing treatment. During the course of the treatment, at around 05:48 A.M., the victim was declared dead, and the said information was recorded vide DD No. 8A. In the investigation, it was revealed from the statement of PW-1/Ajeet Pandey, that he, along with the deceased, heard the sounds of a quarrel emanating from the appellant‟s room. The deceased went to the room of the appellant and attempted to pacify the appellant and his wife, however, the same was not received well by the appellant. Thereafter, when the deceased returned to his room, where PW-1 was also present, the appellant followed him. After a heated exchange of words, the deceased assaulted the appellant with a wooden stick, following which, the appellant attacked the deceased with a kitchen knife. PW-1 attempted to intervene and stop the scuffle, but he was pushed away by the appellant and he fell down. During the altercation, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre, Delhi, where, approximately 30-40 minutes after his admission, he was declared dead. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint of PW-1 (Ex. PW-1/A), the subject FIR was registered, and the appellant was subsequently arrested.
4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Chargesheet was filed on 02.10.2019.
5. The learned Trial Court, vide Order dated 30.10.2019, framed Charges under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant, to which he pleaded „not guilty‟ and claimed trial.
6. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, including PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5, who are vital for the purposes of the present appeal, and whose testimony shall be discussed in detail hereinafter.
7. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the „Cr.P.C.‟) was recorded on 31.10.2022. The appellant denied the prosecution‟s case and pleaded false implication. He stated that on the intervening night of 12/13.07.2019, he had consumed liquor outside his house. Thereafter, he returned home, where PW-1 and the deceased asked him to come to their room, stati
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
