The injuries inflicted without premeditation in a sudden provocation to fall under Section 304 IPC: Supreme Court

IN THE CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1730 OF 2015 STATE OF M.P.son of the deceased. As per the statement on the date of the incident the deceased returned from his field after delivering fertiliser on his Bullock Cart. The deceased was to take another round to deliver fertiliser but in the meantime the accused quarrelled with the deceased on the issue of construction of the wall. The dispute was pacified by Jagdish. However after Jagdish left the accused climbed over the Bullock Cart of Kartik Ram and assaulted him with a spade. The accused hit the deceased with a stone on his head and as a result the deceased died The prosecution examined Arjun son of the deceased Sukhbati Baiwife of the deceased and Budhraman acquaintance of the deceased. PW 3 turned hostile. The prose cution also examined Shankar Lalthe nephew of the de ceased and the accused. He also turned hostile. The postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr G.P. Chandrakaris the Investigating Officer. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued that the offence was committed without premeditation in the sudden fight in the heat of passion and thus falls within Ex ception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The appellant and the deceased are members of the family and that the dispute occurred on the ques tion of raising the wall. The appellant is alleged to have hit the de ceased with the Shovel a common agricultural tool and later picked up a stone to hit the deceased. Such injuries were caused in the heat of passion as is likely to cause death. Therefore it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling within the first part of Section 304 IPC. Such an argument was raised before the High Court as well but the High Court did not agree with the The accused is an agriculturist and the Shovel is a part of an agri cultural tool that is possessed by agriculturists. The accused was attributed with the first blow with the Shovel followed a hit by a stone on the head of the deceased which was picked up from the street. The accused and the deceased were from the same family. The cause of provocation was sudden without premeditation. We find that in the facts and circumstances of the case it is a case falling under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The injuries were inflicted without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken ad vantage or acted cruelly or unusually. In this view of the matter we find that the appellant is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part I. The appellant has served more than 18years of his jail sentence Therefore keeping in view the period of custody undergone the relationship between the accused and the deceased and the back ground in which the injuries were caused we are inclined to allow this appeal partly. We thus convict the appellant for an offence un der Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence him to the sentence al ready undergone. He is to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case S. RAVINDRA BHAT NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 09 2021

Summary: In a case where the cause of provocation was sudden, without premeditation, the appellant was liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part I. The Court, in the matter of Pardeshiram vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1730 OF 2015], concluded from the facts and circumstances that the situation would fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The judgement was given by Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for causing death in a land dispute. The Senior Council for the appellant argued that the offence was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of passion and, thus, falls within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The appellant and the deceased were members of the same family and the dispute arose on the question of raising a wall. The tool with which the appellant was alleged to hit the deceased with is a common tool used by agriculturalists which makes it evident that injuries were caused in the heat of passion as is likely to cause death. Therefore, it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling within the first part of Section 304 IPC. The judgement stated that, “The accused is an agriculturist, and the Shovel is a part of an agricultural tool that is possessed by agriculturists. The accused was attributed with the first blow with the Shovel followed a hit by a stone on the head of the deceased which was picked up from the street.” It further stated, “The accused and the deceased were from the same family. The cause of provocation was sudden, without premeditation. We find that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a case falling under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The injuries were inflicted without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken advantage or acted cruelly or unusually. In this view of the matter, we find that the appellant is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part I.” The Court kept in the view the 18 years of custody undergone by the appellant and taking in consideration the relationship between the accused and the deceased, was inclined to allow the appeal partly. The appellant was thus convicted under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and he was sentenced to the sentence already undergone. He was released hence