Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC | Three Minutes Is Too Short For A Cold-Blooded Decision To Murder: Calcutta High Court

“Any Premeditation… Stands Clearly Ruled Out” – Sudden Family Quarrel Brings Case Within Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC - Calcutta High Court delivered a significant judgment revisiting the thin but crucial line between “murder” and “culpable homicide not amounting to murder.” A Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held that a fatal assault arising from a sudden dispute between brothers over maintenance of their aged parents did not amount to murder under Section 302 IPC.

Setting aside the conviction under Sections 302/326/34 IPC, the Court convicted the appellants under Section 304 Part I IPC and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone—14 years—directing their release subject to bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 481 of the BNSS, 2023.

The ruling underscores that where passion flares in a sudden family quarrel without premeditation, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC may step in to dilute the offence.

A Family Meeting That Turned Fatal

The case arose out of a tragic confrontation among brothers. Their father, Raham Box Sk, had divided his immovable properties equally among his six sons. Soon thereafter, a dispute surfaced over who would bear the responsibility of feeding and maintaining the aged parents.

A meeting was convened at the ancestral house to settle the issue. The settlement talks failed. According to the prosecution, the appellants left the place of occurrence and returned within three minutes carrying household implements such as a bhojali, hasua, rod and stick. Ainuddin Sk was fatally injured, while Kalimuddin Sk survived.

The Trial Court treated the assault as murder and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment. The High Court was called upon to determine whether the ingredients of Section 300 IPC were truly satisfied.

“The 3 Minute Time Gap… Is Not Enough For Cooling Down The Nerves”

The core legal question was whether the brief departure and return of the appellants with weapons established premeditation.

Rejecting that inference, the Bench observed:

“The 3 minute time gap between the departure of the appellants and their arrival at the PO is not enough for cooling down the nerves. The said short time gap cannot impute the appellants with the motive to kill… The said time is not adequate for a decision making process to start on and formation of a premeditation to commit the murder.”

The Court noted that the appellants had not arrived at the meeting armed. The weapons used were ordinary rural household implements “normally found in every rural Indian house-hold” and “by their very nature are not murderous.”

Relying on Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 927), the Bench reiterated that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies when the act is committed “without premeditation,” “in a sudden fight,” and “in the heat of passion.”

The Court concluded that the failed settlement regarding maintenance of parents was the immediate trigger and that the assault erupted spontaneously.

Evidence, Hostile Witness and Investigative Lapses

The judgment also dealt with discrepancies regarding the exact place of occurrence and the recording of statements under Sections 154 and 164 Cr.P.C. The injured brother turned hostile but confirmed aspects of the assault during cross-examination.

Despite lapses by the Investigating Officer, including non-production of seized weapons and hospital records, the Court held that the core prosecution case stood proved through the testimony of PW 2 and the medical evidence.

The Bench made it clear that minor inconsistencies could not eclipse credible ocular and medical testimony establishing participation of the accused.

Intention To Kill Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The deceased suffered four injuries, including a cut injury on the neck and blunt trauma affecting the lung. However, the post-mortem doctor deposed that the victim “may have survived if he had been brought to the hospital early.”

Crucially, both the deceased and the surviving brother were assaulted in the same scuffle. The Court observed:

“The intention of the appellants could not have been to kill one and injure the other.”

The prosecution failed to demonstrate a distinguishing feature showing deliberate targeting of the deceased alone. This absence of specific intent to cause death created reasonable doubt regarding a charge under Section 302 IPC.

Conviction Altered To Section 304 Part I IPC

Having found absence of premeditation and presence of sudden quarrel, the Court held:

“This Court is therefore of the view that the crime committed by the accused persons including the appellants would fall under the first part of Section 304 of the IPC.”

Considering that the incident arose out of a family dispute between blood brothers and that the appellants had already undergone 14 years of incarceration, the Bench reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and set aside the fine.

The appellants were directed to execute bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. before release.

The Calcutta High Court’s decision reinforces that every homicide does not amount to murder. When a fatal assault arises from a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion, without prior deliberation or cruel advantage, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC may reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

By holding that “three minutes is too short for a cold-blooded decision to murder,” the Court has once again emphasized that criminal liability must correspond not merely to the result, but to the proven intention and surrounding circumstances.

Date of Decision: 18 February 2026