-
by sayum
26 April 2025 7:19 AM
Use of Blunt Side of Axe and Stick During Sudden Fight Indicates Absence of Intention to Kill — Supreme Court of India delivered a vital judgment , where it converted a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC into one under Section 304 Part I, noting that the fatal incident occurred during a sudden quarrel among closely related family members without any premeditation or cruelty.
"It cannot be said that there was any premeditation... The nature of injury and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would also not show that the appellant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner," held a Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih.
Background of the Case: A Dispute Over Agricultural Access Turns Deadly
The appellant, Sudam Prabhakar Achat, was convicted along with his uncle for the murder of his grandfather’s brother, Motiram Deoram Achat, following a heated confrontation over the use of a shared agricultural bundh and electric pump.
The incident occurred on 15 July 2009 in village Sitane, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik, when a verbal altercation escalated into physical violence. The deceased was assaulted with the blunt side of an axe (by the co-accused) and a wooden stick (by the appellant). He succumbed to injuries later that night.
While both the Trial Court and the Bombay High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, the Supreme Court limited its consideration to whether the conviction could be altered to Section 304 Part I or II, given the nature and context of the assault.
“Assault Occurred in Heat of Moment — No Evidence of Premeditation or Cruelty,” Says Supreme Court
The Court noted several critical facts from the record:
The weapons used (a stick and blunt side of an axe) were ordinary agricultural tools.
The attack occurred near the accused's home, suggesting a spontaneous confrontation.
The assailants and the deceased were first cousins, highlighting a close familial relationship.
There was no evidence of planning or intent to kill.
If their intention was to kill the deceased, there was no reason as to why the co-accused would not have used the sharp side of the axe," the Court observed.
It therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation.
Accordingly, the Bench held that the case falls within the scope of Exception IV to Section 300 IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fight without premeditation and where the accused has not taken undue advantage.
Court on Interested Witnesses: "Relationship Alone No Ground to
Discard Testimony"
Addressing the argument that the witnesses were relatives of the deceased, the Court clarified:
"Merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony."
However, it emphasized that such testimony must be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection, which it did.
Final Order: Sentence Limited to Period Already Undergone
Having served over 6 years and 10 months, the appellant was granted
Date of Decision: 21 March 2025
