Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ
Chunda Murmu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 839 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditya Raman
For the Respondents: Tarun Kumar

A homicide committed without premeditation during a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion, without undue advantage or unusual cruelty, qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300, punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 and Section 304 (Part II) - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Conviction under Section 302 altered to Section 304 Part II - Necessity to analyze intent and distinguish between murder and culpable homicide based on circumstances. (Paras 35, 36, 73)

(B) Culpable Homicide - Exception 4 to Section 300 - When a homicide is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, it falls within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 and is punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. (Paras 48, 49, 70, 71)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, in a drunken state, engaged in a quarrel with his wife regarding her desire to visit her parental house. In the heat of passion, the appellant struck a single blow with a wooden plank upon his wife's head, which proved fatal. The trial court convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC. The appellant appealed, arguing that the incident lacked premeditation and resulted from a sudden quarrel, thereby warranting a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the evidence established that the incident was not premeditated and occurred due to a sudden quarrel between the spouses. The infliction of a single blow and the absence of cruel or unusual conduct led the court to conclude that the offense fell under Exception 4 to Section 300.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and if the act instead constituted an offense punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of premeditation and where there is a sudden fight in the heat of passion without the offender taking undue advantage or acting in an unusually cruel manner, the offense is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II, rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.

Result: Appeal disposed of; conviction modified to Section 304 Part II and sentence reduced to period already undergone.

Table of Content
1. summary of prosecution case and trial court proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. core contentions regarding the nature of the offence. (Para 8 , 9)
3. analysis of evidentiary testimony and trial court findings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. jurisprudential distinction between murder and culpable homicide. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. legal definitions of intent, knowledge, and exceptions. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
6. applying exception 4 of section 300 to current facts. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
7. modification of conviction and final sentencing order. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 17.03.2017 and order of sentence dated 18.03.2017, passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka, in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo R.I for life under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in the event of non-payment of fine convict was further directed to undergo SI for additional three months.

2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case, which as per the written report of the informant Safid Choukidar is that on 29.10.2011, when the informant was going to his house from his duty from State Bank of India, Gando Branch then the villager of Chirudih village informed him that Chunda Murmu has committed murder of his wife. To verify this information, he reached near the Chunda Murmu's house where he saw that many persons were gathered there and dead body of Joba Marandi, wife of Chunda Murmu, was lying on the ground and the blood was oozing out from her head. It is further alleged that on inquiry villagers stated that today at about 2:00 p.m. a quarrel was going on between Chunda Murmu and his wife and Chunda Murmu, who remains in drunken state in whole day and did not do any work and his wife maintained her four children anyhow and she being annoyed from her husband wanted to go her father's house Kolha, Police Station Kathikund then Chunda Murmu has prohibited him and when she did not do so and rigid to go to her father's house then Chunda Murmu picked up a ‘wooden pirha’ and given blow forcibly on the head of his wife due to which his wife sustained grievous injury and she fell down in injured condition and died.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant dated 29.10.2011 Dumka (M) P.S. Case No. 156/2011 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Chunda Murmu and after completion of investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Chunda Murmu. Accordingly, the cognizance for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against accused Chunda Murmu and the case stands committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 29.05.2012 by the Court of C.J.M., Dumka.

4. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against named accused person on 27.09.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses, they are PW 1 Md. Safid, (informant of this case), PW 2 Mallick Marandi, PW 3 Mangal Murmu, PW 4 Bateshwar Marandi (hostile), PW 5 Jitu Murmu (hostile), PW 6 Raska Murmu, PW 7 Md. Nijamuddin, PW 8 Md. Mukhtar Ali, PW 9 Parmeshwar Liyangi, (Investigatin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJChunda Murmu – AppellantVersusState Of Jharkhand – RespondentCr. Appeal (DB) No. 839 of 2017

A homicide committed without premeditation during a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion, without undue advantage or unusual cruelty, qualifies as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300, punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

Cases Referred (5)

Sujit Narayan Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ
Chunda Murmu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 839 of 2017