1. Appeal against conviction for murder — Single stab injury during sudden scuffle between tailors who lived together. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16804
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Mukesh – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
CRL.A. 85/2025 | CRL.M.(BAIL) 154/2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dhruva Bhagat
For the Respondents: Aashneet Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dhruva Bhagat
For the Respondents: Aashneet Singh
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC is altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC if the act was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Headnote:(A) Section 300 IPC - Exception 4 - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Where an incident occurs during a sudden fight in the heat of passion, without premeditation, and the offender uses a weapon readily available at the spot without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner, the offence is downgraded from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 27-32)
(B) Section 300 IPC - Clause (3) - Objective Test for Murder - To establish murder under the third clause, the prosecution must prove: (i) presence of a bodily injury, (ii) the nature of the injury, (iii) intention to inflict that specific injury, and (iv) that the injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Para 20-22)
(C) Determination of Intention - Factors - The intention to cause death is gathered from a combination of circumstances including the nature of the weapon, whether it was carried or picked up from the spot, the target area of the blow, the force employed, and whether the act occurred during a sudden quarrel. (Para 26)
Issues: Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part II IPC on the basis of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued offence was culpable homicide not murder due to sudden fight without premeditation; State argued murder due to stab on vital part. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. Despite satisfying murder ingredients, the case falls within Exception 4 due to sudden fight, no premeditation, intoxication, and single injury. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
4. Even if acts fall within Section 300 murder clauses, Exception 4 (sudden fight without premeditation) reduces offence to culpable homicide. (Para 23 , 38 )
5. Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II; sentence reduced to time already served, release ordered. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 )
6. When can a murder conviction under Section 300, Clause (3) be reduced under Exception 4?
When the killing occurs in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and the offender did not take undue advantage or act cruelly. (Para 23 , 27 , 28 , 38 )
7. What factors determine whether a homicide is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
The court assesses intention via factors like weapon use, premeditation, sudden quarrel, provocation, number of blows, and whether undue advantage was taken. (Para 26 , 27 )
8. Is a single fatal stab wound sufficient to establish murder under Section 300(3) of the IPC?
Yes, if the intention to inflict that particular injury is proved and the injury is objectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
9. Does the use of a knife or multiple wounds automatically negate Exception 4 to Section 300?
No, the use of a weapon or multiple blows is not decisive; the overall circumstances, including suddenness and lack of premeditation, determine applicability. (Para 37 , 38 )
JUDGMENT
Vikas Mahajan, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant under Section 415(2) BNSS, 2023 against the judgment of conviction dated 19.02.2024 and order on sentence dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-01) (South), Saket, New Delhi arising out of FIR No.1735/2015 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) registered at P.S. Neb Sarai, Delhi.
3. Vide impugned judgment dated 19.02.2024, the Appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of deceased Rishi Pal. Vide order on sentence dated 03.09.2024, the Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/- was also imposed.
4. The facts germane for deciding the present appeal are that the complainant/Lalit [PW-1] had let out one room to Rajesh [PW-4] to run a tailoring shop. The names of the other tailors working with Rajesh were Babita - his wife, Mukesh - Appellant herein, and one Rishipal. The Appellant and Rishipal used to stay at night in the rented room. On 13.12.2015 at about 9-9.30 pm, after hearing the screams, complainant rushed towards the room of Appellant and Rishipal and found that they were scuffling with each other just outside the gate of their room. When the complainant separated them, suddenly Rishipal fell down. The complainant took Rishipal to his room and made him lie down, when he saw blood on Rishipal’s abdomen. He made a PCR call, ASI Rahees Pal [PW-8] reached at the spot. Till the arrival of police, Rishipal was conscious and he told the complainant that the Appellant had inserted some object into his abdomen. Appellant was also present at the place of incident. ASI Rahees Pal took the injured to AIIMS Trauma Centre in PCR Van and got him admitted there.
5. The FIR was initially registered under Section 307 IPC against the Appellant. Subsequently, since the injured Rishipal succumbed to his injuries, the offence was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was arrested on 15.12.2015 at 8:00 PM.
6. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed by the police under Section 173 Cr.PC.
7. On the basis of material placed on record by the prosecution along with the chargesheet, charge was framed against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, vide order dated 10.06.2016, to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses, out of which only two were public witnesses namely, PW-1 Lalit and PW-4 Rajesh. Thereafter, the statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, but he did not lead any defence evidence.
9. The Trial Court upon appreciation of testimony of PW-1 Lalit recorded a finding that the deceased had suffered stab injuries with a sharp weapon during the scuffle between the Appellant and deceased Rishipal, which gives an inference that the injury on his abdomen was caused by the Appellant during the said scuffle.
10. The Trial Court further held that the deceased before his death had made a statement to PW-8 ASI Rahees Pal and PW4 Rajesh whereby he told that the Appellant had caused injury to him with a pair of scissors. The said statements of PW-8 and PW-4 were treated as dying declaration in terms of Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
11. Accordingly, on the basis of the testimonies of PW-1 as well as statements of PW-8 and PW-4, it was held that the Appellant had caused injuries to deceased Rishipal. Further, relying on the post-mortem report, the Trial Court held that the said injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, it was found that the requisites for the offence under Section 300(3) IPC have been established by the prosecution. The Trial Court also observed that the absence of motive or the previous animosity between the Appellant and the deceased are of no conseque
