Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Chhattisgarh HC Alters Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide Under Exception 4 to S.300 IPC - 2025-07-19

Chhattisgarh High Court Alters Murder Conviction, Cites 'Sudden Fight' Exception

Bilaspur , CG – The High Court of Chhattisgarh has modified the life imprisonment sentence of two brothers convicted for murder, ruling that their actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the incident, which arose from a dispute over Holika Dahan firewood, fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as it was a "sudden fight" without premeditation.

The Court set aside the conviction under Section 302 (Murder) and convicted the appellants, Motiram Chauhan and Purshottam Chauhan, under Section 304 Part-I (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder), sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from an incident on March 28, 2021, during Holi festivities. A verbal altercation began when Motiram Chauhan was confronted for taking wood belonging to the informant's family for a Holika Dahan bonfire. The situation escalated when Motiram , his brother Purshottam , and their father Ramlal (since deceased) returned armed with a knife and sticks.

According to the prosecution, the deceased, Bali Chauhan , intervened when the accused began hurling abuses. In the ensuing confrontation, Motiram stabbed Bali with a knife, while Purshottam and Ramlal assaulted him with sticks. Bali Chauhan succumbed to multiple grievous injuries. The trial court in Janjgir -Champa found the brothers guilty of murder under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellants, represented by Advocate Varun Sharma , did not dispute the incident but argued for a lesser charge. They contended that the act was not premeditated and occurred "on the spur of the moment" during a sudden quarrel, fueled by pre-existing animosity after Motiram had eloped with the deceased's niece. The defence pleaded that the case squarely fits within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

Conversely, the State, represented by Government Advocate Sangharsh Pandey , argued that the brutal nature of the assault, involving a knife and sticks, demonstrated a clear intent to kill, justifying the murder conviction.

Court's Analysis: Distinguishing Murder from Culpable Homicide

The High Court meticulously analyzed the conditions required to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, referencing landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017) and Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) . The bench reiterated the four essential ingredients for the exception to apply: 1. The fight must be sudden. 2. There must be no premeditation. 3. The act must be done in the heat of passion. 4. The offender must not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.

The Court observed:

"It is apparent that though there was no premeditation on the part of the appellants to cause death of deceased. The appellants did not had any intention to cause death of deceased, but by causing such injury, he must had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by them would likely to cause death of Bali Chauhan , as such, the case would fall within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC."

The bench concluded that the prosecution's own narrative, supported by eyewitnesses, established that the fatal confrontation was an escalation of a sudden quarrel. The evidence did not point to a pre-planned conspiracy to commit murder.

Final Verdict and Sentence Modification

Based on its findings, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment of conviction for murder. It held that while the appellants did not intend to cause death, they acted with the knowledge that their assault was likely to be fatal, thus attracting the provisions of Section 304 Part-I IPC.

The judgment stated:

"Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC is set aside, however, they are convicted under Section 304 Part-I/ 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The fine sentence imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact."

The Court noted that the appellants had been in jail since March 29, 2021, and directed them to serve out the remainder of their modified sentence.