-
by Admin
17 February 2026 2:34 PM
Assault Was Not Premeditated—Accused Lost Control After Being
Abused During Holi Drinking Binge
In a significant ruling Delhi High Court altered the conviction of two men from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma held that “the act was not premeditated, but committed in the heat of the moment, triggered by sudden provocation and prior hostility.” Both convicts were sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone—nearly 10 years— and were ordered to be released.
The incident took place on March 17, 2014, when Bharat (the deceased), after returning from leave, arrived at the premises of Drall Properties, Mundka, Delhi, where he worked as a tractor driver. His colleagues—appellants Dilip Tripathi (A-1) and Raju Tiwari (A-2)— were also employed there. According to eyewitness Ram Braj Paswan (PW-17), the accused and the deceased had consumed liquor during Holi celebrations. When Bharat arrived and saw A-2 lying in a nude condition, he allegedly began abusing him, leading to a scuffle.
Later, A-1 and A-2 pulled down the shop shutter. When they reopened it, Bharat was found unconscious and bleeding, with serious head injuries. He was dragged outside and left on a pile of sand. PW-17 informed the employer, and an FIR was soon registered. The accused were arrested the next morning from a godown in Jhajjar Road, Haryana, and blood-stained clothes, weapons (kassi and belcha), and the deceased’s phone were recovered.
The Trial Court convicted both under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 and sentenced them to life imprisonment in January 2020.
The High Court focused on two pivotal issues:
1. Whether the act was a premeditated murder or arose from grave and sudden provocation.
2. Whether the evidence supported intention to kill or knowledge of the likelihood of causing death.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma, writing the judgment, observed: “Everything happened at the spur of the moment and perhaps in an inebriated state, the parties engaged in heated conversation… and that triggered an uncontrollable impulse.”
The Court cited Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., where the Supreme Court laid out parameters to distinguish between murder and culpable homicide, including whether there was any prior enmity, premeditation, and the nature of weapons used.
“There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality.”
Further, in Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court emphasized that the test of provocation must be seen from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the same socio-economic class.
In the present case, the Court highlighted: “It was the deceased who provoked A-2 due to previous animosity and started abusing them… the appellants, likely from a lower socioeconomic background, acted in the heat of the moment.”
Despite the brutality of the attack, the High Court found: The proven conduct does not warrant punishment under Section 302 IPC. The case falls squarely under Section 304 Part II.
The Court also reasoned that while PW-17 (the eyewitness) did not directly see the assault due to the shutter being pulled down, the circumstantial evidence—including injuries, blood-stained clothes, and immediate arrest—was sufficient to establish involvement but not intention to murder.
Reducing the conviction, the Court stated: “This Court has no hesitation in opining that the present case warrants conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC despite the appellants’ culpability in causing death.”
Taking into account that both accused had been in custody for nearly 10 years, the Court ordered:
“The interest of justice would be served by providing that they be sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone… no fine is imposed.”
The appeals were partly allowed, and the appellants directed to be released forthwith.
Date of Decision: 27 March 2025
