304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide

“It Takes Two To Make A Fight”,Jharkhand High Court delivered a significant judgment revisiting the fine distinction between murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai partly allowed the appeals, modifying the conviction from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC by invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, noting that the appellants had remained in custody for over twelve years.

The conviction of appellant Somra Oraon under Section 324 IPC for causing simple injury to the informant was, however, upheld.

When Does A Family Quarrel Become Murder?

The appeals challenged the judgment dated 23 December 2016 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 2009, whereby both appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Somra Oraon was additionally convicted under Section 324 IPC.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the fatal assault arising out of a sudden quarrel between brothers over construction of a mud house amounted to “murder” under Section 302 IPC or fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, thereby constituting culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.

Construction Dispute Turns Fatal On Holi Evening

The prosecution case stemmed from the fardbeyan of P.W.-1 Bariya Urain, wife of the deceased Fagu Oraon. On 20.03.2008 at about 6:30 PM, while constructing a mud house on what she claimed to be their partitioned share of land, her husband was confronted by his elder brother Baiju Oraon, who objected to the construction.

An altercation ensued. According to P.W.-1:

“First of all scuffle took place between both the brothers Baiju and Fagu. Thereafter, Somra brought baluwa and Baiju came with sword.”

Both allegedly assaulted Fagu Oraon on the head and neck, resulting in his instantaneous death. The post-mortem report revealed multiple incised wounds, including deep cuts on the cheek, neck, forehead and skull, caused by “heavy sharp cutting weapon”.

The Trial Court found the appellants guilty under Section 302/34 IPC.

Section 302 Or Exception 4 To Section 300?

The defence argued that even accepting the prosecution case in toto, the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, and thus at best attracted Section 304 Part I IPC.

The High Court examined the legal framework of Sections 299 and 300 IPC and the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300, which applies when death is caused:

“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.”

The Bench relied extensively on Arumugam v. State (2008) 15 SCC 590, Surain Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 796 and Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444.

Quoting Arumugam, the Court reiterated:

“For bringing in its operation it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

The Bench further emphasised:

“It takes two to make a fight.”

Absence of Premeditation And Heat Of Passion

The Court identified several admitted and proved facts:

“Informant side and appellants are members of same family.”

“Fagu Oraon (deceased) and Baiju Oraon (appellant) are own brothers and Somra Oraon is the nephew of the deceased.”

The evidence of the sole eye-witness P.W.-1 revealed that: “Firstly appellants were unarmed and just after scuffle accused/appellants came with the baluwa and sword.”

This, according to the Court, demonstrated absence of premeditation. The quarrel arose suddenly over construction of a mud house.

The Bench observed: “It is evident that there was absence of premeditation on the part of the appellants.”

The Court also took note that both accused were arrested from the spot and did not flee, observing that they had “ample opportunity to escape”, yet remained present. This was considered indicative of absence of undue advantage.

The Court concluded: “The killing of the deceased was not intentional and it occurred due to spur of moment over the matter of construction of new house between both the brothers… resulting into death of Fagu Oraon.”

Weapon And Injuries: Not Decisive By Themselves

While the deceased suffered severe sharp-cut injuries on vital parts, the Court stressed that mere use of a deadly weapon does not automatically attract Section 302 IPC.

Relying on Pulicherla Nagaraju, the Bench noted that courts must carefully examine intention, considering circumstances such as:

“whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight” and “whether there was any premeditation.”

In the present case, the background facts, relationship between parties, and spontaneous escalation of the dispute outweighed the inference of a pre-planned murder.

Section 324 IPC Conviction Upheld

As regards the injury to the informant Bariya Urain, medical evidence established a simple injury on her left arm. The High Court held:

“So far as the conviction under Section 324 IPC passed against the accused appellant Somra Oraon… the same requires no interference.”

Thus, the conviction under Section 324 IPC was affirmed.

Sentence: Reduced To Period Already Undergone

The appellants had remained in custody for more than twelve years. After modifying the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

The Bench directed: “The appellants are directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.”

Murder Recast As Culpable Homicide In Sudden Family Feud

The Jharkhand High Court’s judgment reinforces the nuanced distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It underscores that even fatal assaults involving sharp weapons may fall within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC if committed:

“without premeditation… in a sudden fight in the heat of passion… and without taking undue advantage.”

The ruling serves as a reminder that criminal intention must be assessed in the totality of circumstances, particularly in cases arising out of spontaneous family disputes.

Date of Decision: 11/02/2026