JUDGMENT

Dated: 02nd December, 2024 By Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned APP appearing for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on aggression, one blow was given by this appellant upon the deceased, who is none, but the father of this appellant. He submits that since the father has levelled an allegation against the appellant that he has stolen rice, this appellant, being enraged by false allegation, has assaulted him. As per him, the doctor has opined that only one blow was given. Since, there was no repeated blow, Section 302 of the I.P.C. cannot be applied in this case.

As per him, this case falls within Exception-4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the deceased is none, but the father of the appellant and the assault was made by an axe. Thus, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted in this case.

4. After hearing the parties, we have gone through the records. As per the fardbayan of Hero Mahto, who is the second brother of this appellant, the father of the appellant and the informant rebuked this appellant by accusing him that he has stolen rice from the house of his father. The appellant, being enraged, took out an axe from his house and assaulted on the head of his father, causing bleeding injury.

5. Based on the aforesaid fardbayan, initially the case was instituted under Section 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against this appellant. In course of treatment, the deceased died, which led to addition of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The Police investigated the occurrence and filed the charge sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. During trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 11 witnesses, namely, P.W.-1, Jainandan Mahto, P.W.-2, Halo Mahto, P.W.-3, Sarita Devi, P.W.-4, Hero Mahto, P.W.-5, Punit Mahto, P.W.-6, Manju Devi, P.W.-7, Baleshwar Prasad, P.W.-8, Khagia Devi, P.W.-9, Amarjeet Singh, P.W.-10, Dr. S.K. Sinha and P.W.-11, Moti Ram.

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence did not choose to adduce any evidence. The trial court, thereafter convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R.I. for life.

8. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

9. The appellant has been convicted for committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code.

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code defines murder, which is as follows:

300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

3rdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

4thly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

10. There are five exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

Exception-4 of Section 300 reads as follows:

Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

11. Thus, as per Exception-4, if a homicidal death is caused in spur of moment in sudden altercation, without any premeditation