Intent and Knowledge Are Not Interchangeable - Silence of Accused Cannot Substitute Proof of Intent to Kill: Delhi High Court

“The silence of the appellant carries no adverse significance when the case itself, incontrovertibly, reveals offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder” — declared the Delhi High Court, ruling that mere non-explanation under Section 313 CrPC cannot justify a murder conviction when the prosecution’s own case shows absence of intent.

In a significant verdict Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain, altered the conviction of a man from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, reducing his life sentence to seven years’ simple imprisonment. The decision came in Criminal Appeal where the appellant had stabbed his wife in the course of a sudden domestic quarrel while under the influence of alcohol.

The Court ruled that although the act involved knowledge of its likely consequences, the absence of intention to cause death, lack of premeditation, and the sudden nature of the incident brought it squarely within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

“A Sudden Quarrel, a Single Knife Blow, and No Premeditation — Not Murder, But Culpable Homicide”

“This is a classic case where the heat of passion overtook reason, and a man, in a moment of drunken rage, picked up a kitchen knife lying nearby and struck his wife with a single blow,” the Court observed, concluding that the act did not bear the hallmarks of a murder.

Domestic Tragedy Triggered by a Minor Argument

The case involved Keshav @ Sonu, convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of his wife Payal. The couple, married since 2016, lived with their two-year-old daughter in a rented one-room accommodation in Anand Parbat, Delhi. On the night of 19 September 2019, a quarrel erupted after Keshav noticed an injury on his daughter's finger and angrily confronted his wife about not tending to her. In a fit of rage and under the influence of alcohol, he picked up a kitchen knife and stabbed her in the chest. She was rushed to the hospital by their landlady but declared brought dead.

The victim’s last words, as testified by the landlady PW-2 Smt. Sundari, were: “Aunty dekho, inhone mere ko kya maar diya.” The High Court found this spontaneous statement, referring to “inhone” (a culturally indicative reference to one’s husband), to be a credible dying declaration.

Trial Court’s Ruling: Life Imprisonment under Section 302 IPC

The Trial Court convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC, ruling that the accused had not explained the incident and had failed to demonstrate that the act fell under any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. Despite acknowledging that only one stab wound was caused using a household kitchen knife and there was no prior enmity, the Trial Court rejected the plea for a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined ₹10,000.

 “Intent and Knowledge Are Not Interchangeable”

Reversing the Trial Court’s decision in part, the High Court held:

“The act of stabbing was, though, without any intention, but the element of knowledge was present.”

Referring to Section 299 and 300 IPC, the Court emphasized that to attract murder under Section 300, the knowledge must be of the highest degree, indicating certainty of death, whereas culpable homicide under Section 299 may rest on the likelihood of causing death.

The Court quoted from Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444, stating: “The intention to cause death can be gathered from a combination of circumstances, including the nature of the weapon, whether it was picked up or carried, whether the act was committed in heat of passion, and whether any undue advantage was taken.”

The Court observed that Keshav did not carry a weapon, acted in the heat of passion, and inflicted a solitary blow with a vegetable-cutting knife during a spontaneous quarrel. These factors supported his case falling within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

"Silence Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Prove Murderous Intent"

Rejecting the Trial Court’s reliance on the appellant’s silence during Section 313 CrPC examination, the High Court categorically held:

“His silence alone cannot brand the occurrence as an act of murder. The silence of the appellant carries no adverse significance when the case itself, incontrovertibly, reveals offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”

The Court reiterated that an accused has a right to remain silent, and unless that silence bridges a missing evidentiary link, it cannot be treated as incriminating.

Circumstances that Tilted the Case Towards Section 304 Part II

The Court found several crucial aspects to support the application of Exception 4:

“There is no evidence of prior enmity. The quarrel was sudden. The accused was under the influence of alcohol. The weapon used was a kitchen knife picked up from the spot. There was no repeated assault or cruelty. The accused remained at the scene and cooperated with the police.”

Moreover, the victim’s dying statement, the absence of premeditation, and the nature of the injury (a single blow) were all consistent with a lack of intent to kill, the Court held.

The Court cited Atul Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 496, where the Supreme Court held that multiple knife injuries inflicted in the heat of passion under intoxication could still fall under Section 304 Part II.

The Court held:

“The appellant never intended to kill his wife, albeit, he possessed knowledge that his such act was likely to cause death.”

The conviction was modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, and the sentence reduced to seven years’ simple imprisonment. The Court also ordered that the appellant would get the benefit of Section 428 CrPC (set-off for time already undergone) and declined to impose any additional fine.

Regarding victim compensation, the Court directed that the recommendation made under Section 357A CrPC by the Trial Court for payment under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, shall be implemented, if not already done.

A copy of the judgment was also directed to be sent to the Superintendent, Jail, for compliance and due communication.

Prosecutorial Overreach Corrected in the Face of Evident Lack of Intent

This judgment represents a principled reaffirmation of the doctrine that murder must be proved with clear intention, and courts must carefully distinguish impulsive acts committed in sudden provocation or under intoxication from cold-blooded, premeditated killings.

As the Court concluded: “While knowledge is present in both Sections 299 and 300 IPC, to make it a case of murder, the State must show that such knowledge of probability of death was of the highest degree. That threshold was clearly not met in this case.”

Date of Decision: 6 November 2025