Accused Bringing Knife From House During Sudden Drunken Fight Suggests Lack Of Premeditation: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Death of deceased is culpable homicide caused by the accused, but the same falls under the exceptions, partly covered by Exception 1 and partly by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC," High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, in a significant ruling, has modified a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.

A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed that the fatal attack, though intentional, was the result of a sudden fight in a drunken state without premeditation. The Court noted that the incident was sparked by mutual abuse regarding the character of female family members and a dispute over a missing mobile phone.

The appellant, Kosetty Chodinaidu, was the sole accused in a case involving the death of his friend, Kaki Rambabu. On August 5, 2013, both attended a birthday function where the accused suspected the deceased of stealing his mobile phone, leading to a heated altercation. Later that night, a second quarrel broke out near their houses, during which the accused brought a knife from his home and hacked the deceased on the head. The victim succumbed to his injuries on August 16, 2013, following which the Trial Court convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The primary question before the court was whether the act of the accused in hacking the deceased on the head with a knife amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or fell within the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. The Court was also called upon to determine if the lack of premeditation and the presence of a sudden fight in a heat of passion justified the conversion of the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Homicidal Nature Of Death And Medical Evidence

The Court first affirmed that the death of the deceased was homicidal, relying on the post-mortem report and the testimony of medical experts. P.W.13 and P.W.12 established that the deceased sustained three major injuries, including a fatal lacerated wound on the head that caused respiratory and circulatory failure. The bench found that the injuries were consistent with the use of the seized weapon, a knife, and that the deceased was conscious when first admitted to the hospital, where he attributed the attack to the accused.

"Oral Dying Declaration Corroborated By Circumstantial Evidence"

The Bench addressed the veracity of the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to his father (P.W.1) and neighbors. While the defense argued that there were discrepancies between the initial report (Ex.P1) and the testimony in court, the Bench held that the information passed by the deceased to P.W.1 about the accused attacking him was reliable. The Court emphasized that a dying declaration is an exception to the hearsay rule under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and can form the sole basis of conviction if found trustworthy.

"Absence Of Premeditation In Sudden Fight"

A crucial observation made by the Court was the lack of premeditation on the part of the accused. The Bench noted that the accused did not carry the knife with him initially but brought it from his house only after the second quarrel erupted. The judges observed that this suggests the attack was not planned but occurred during the course of a fight. The court highlighted that a "sudden fight" implies mutual provocation and blows on each side, placing both parties on equal footing regarding the origin of the dispute.

"Application Of Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC"

The Court analyzed the parameters of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Sandhya Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra. The Bench held that for the exception to apply, the act must be committed without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage. In this case, the court found that the voluntary intoxicated condition of both parties and the "heated exchange involving the female members of their families" clouded their sober reason.

"The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'."

"Distinction Between Grave Provocation And Sudden Fight"

The Bench noted that Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section 300 IPC often overlap, but the distinction lies in the role of the deceased. While Exception 1 focuses on the provocation given by the deceased, Exception 4 deals with mutual provocation in a sudden combat. The Court found that the appellant’s case was covered by both to some extent, as the deceased had attributed unchastity to the accused's sister-in-law, which acted as a catalyst for the fatal rage in a drunken state.

"High Court Modifies Sentence To Ten Years"

Concluding that the conviction under Section 302 IPC was not sustainable, the Court converted the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC. The Bench modified the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the fine of Rs. 2,000. The Court directed the appellant to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the remainder of his sentence, granting him the benefit of set-off for the period already undergone in custody as per Section 428 Cr.P.C.

"The strong circumstance that enables the accused to seek the benefit of the exception is that there was an altercation and fight between the accused and the deceased immediately before the incident."

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, ruling that while the accused was responsible for the death, the lack of premeditation and the presence of a sudden quarrel necessitated a reduction in the gravity of the offense. The judgment reinforces the principle that acts committed in the heat of passion during a mutual struggle, especially under the influence of alcohol and grave provocation, qualify for the exceptions to murder under the IPC.

Date of Decision: 08 May 2026