When a homicide occurs during a spontaneous, unpremeditated scuffle with a single blow and no prior animosity, the act falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II rather than Part I.

Judgment

Per Hon’ble Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.

These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment dated 22.12.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge (Communal Riots Cases) Tonk (for brevity ‘the learned trial court’) in Sessions Case No.39/2000, whereby, while acquitting the accused Hazari Lal of the charge under Section 302 IPC, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

1. Under Section 304 Part I IPC: Seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹1,000/-; in default whereof, one month’s additional imprisonment.

2. Under Section 326 IPC: Two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹500/-; in default whereof, fifteen days’ additional imprisonment.

3. Under Section 325 IPC: One year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹250/-; in default whereof, seven days’ additional imprisonment.

All the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

The criminal appeal No.264/2002 has been preferred by the State being aggrieved to the extent the accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC; whereas, Criminal Appeal No.41/2001 has been preferred by the accused against his conviction and sentence, as supra.

The relevant facts in brief are that on 07.09.1999, the complainant Lala Nath (PW-3) submitted a written report (Ex.P4) to the SHO Police Station Piplu, District Tonk wherein, it was stated that at about 06.30 PM on 06.09.1999, the accused came to their house with a heifer calf with an allegation that the same belonged to them and used to graze his crop whereupon, his brother-Prahlad denied the allegation. It was alleged that thereupon, the accused got annoyed and started a scuffle with the complainant party whereafter, the accused rushed to his home and brought an iron rod (measuring 1 foot 8 inches, used in tractor by agriculturist and not a weapon of offence) and dealt with a blow on head of his brother-Prahlad which proved to be fatal. Based thereupon, an FIR No. 160 dated 07.09.1999 (Ex.P5) came to be registered under Sections 302 and 323 IPC. After investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted and charges under Sections 302, 326, 325 and 323 IPC were framed against him. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.

Assailing the impugned judgment, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that although, the defence has come out with a plea of right of private defence; but, from the evidence on record, it was established that after the first episode of scuffle having occurred in front of house of the deceased, the accused had rushed to his home, brought an iron rod and inflicted a blow on head of the deceased which proved to be fatal. He contended that in absence of any evidence that once the accused had reached his home, he had any apprehension of any harm to his body/property, the plea of right of private defence could not have been invoked to justify infliction of the injury which, as per medical opinion, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal preferred by the State be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 22.12.2000 be quashed and set aside to the extent the accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC, he be convicted of the same and be sentenced accordingly.

Per contra, learned counsel for the accused would argue that from the prosecution evidence, it was established that the incident occurred at spur of the moment, without any premeditation on his part to cause either death or to inflict any bodily injury on the person of the deceased. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, the accused had gone to residence of the deceased with a request to keep their heifer calf under control as she used to graze his crop whereupon, he was assaulted by the deceased and a large number of his family members resulting into multiple injuries on his body and in the scuffle, a single blow came to be inflicted on the body of the deceased which, unfortunately, proved to be fatal. Learned counsel contended that the pr