If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court

"One Blow, No Murder", On January 9, 2026, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment revisiting the often-contested boundary between murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. While affirming the conviction of the appellant for causing the death of a man during a spontaneous group clash, the Court reduced the sentence to period already undergone, considering the appellant’s advanced age (over 80 years) and six years and three months of incarceration already served.

The Bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria highlighted that the offence fell squarely within the framework of Section 304 Part II IPC, not Section 302, due to lack of premeditation, absence of common object, and the single lathi blow delivered in a free fight situation.

No Common Object, No Murder – Section 149 IPC Not Attracted

Rejecting the prosecution's theory that the offence was committed by an unlawful assembly with a common object to kill, the Court observed:

“The scenario of the offence was one of a free fight... It is not possible to reason and to conclude that there was a formation of unlawful assembly with common object of causing death.”

This finding dismantled the charges under Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC, which had initially been invoked to attribute vicarious liability to the appellant and other accused persons. The Supreme Court echoed the High Court’s view that the prosecution failed to establish any shared intention or planned motive.

Single Blow With Lathi – Knowledge, Not Intention

In addressing the key issue—whether the act constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder—the Court applied established jurisprudence to underline the subtle distinction between “knowledge” and “intention”:

“If intention to cause such an injury as is likely to cause death is established, the offence would fall under Part I, but where no such intention is established and only knowledge that the injury is likely to cause death, it would fall under Part II.”

The Court found that the appellant used a lathi to strike a single blow on the head of the deceased (Ram Singh), and medical evidence confirmed the injury as the cause of death. However, given the spontaneous nature of the incident and the broader context of a sudden fight, the Court concluded that there was no intention to kill, only knowledge that such an act could cause death.

“The appellant acted without any premeditation... although in eye of law, having regard to the kind of weapon used and the nature of injury inflicted, knowledge could be inferred.”

Medical and Ocular Evidence Consistent – Individual Liability Proven

The Court meticulously examined the testimonies of eyewitnesses, including Gowardhan Singh (PW-8) and Narayan Singh (PW-9), and found that their accounts were credible, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. It was established that Shrikrishna delivered a single lathi blow on the head of Ram Singh, who succumbed to his injuries a day later.

The post-mortem conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar (PW-12) revealed a fractured parietal bone and hematoma, with the cause of death attributed to blunt force trauma to the head.

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Sudden Fight, No Premeditation

Crucially, the Court invoked Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which excludes murder liability in cases involving sudden fights without premeditation, provided the offender does not act in a cruel or unusual manner. It held:

“Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel... It is immaterial which party offered provocation or committed the first assault.”

Applying this exception, the Court validated the High Court’s decision to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.

Appellant’s Age and Jail Time Earn Him Sentence Reduction

Shrikrishna, who was arrested in December 1992, had cumulatively spent over six years in incarceration. Considering his age of more than 80 years, the Supreme Court invoked a compassionate approach:

“Since the appellant is an old and aged person, and in the December of his life, it would be harsh and inadvisable to send him behind the bars again at this stage.”

Accordingly, while upholding the conviction, the Court modified the sentence to “imprisonment already undergone” and ordered that bail bonds be discharged.

Intention vs. Knowledge Defines Section 302 and 304 Part II

This judgment reiterates the nuanced difference between culpable homicide and murder—a distinction deeply rooted in the mental element of the offence. Where intention to cause death is absent, but knowledge of the likely consequence is present, Section 304 Part II is the appropriate charge.

Referring to the decision in Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana [(2008) 15 SCC 753], the Court reaffirmed:

“Culpable homicide is the genus and murder its species. Not all homicides amount to murder.”

In sum, the Court’s analysis underscores that not every death resulting from violence is murder, particularly when the act occurs in the heat of passion during a sudden altercation, as in the present case.

Date of Decision: January 9, 2026