Occurrence Not Premeditated and Happened in Sudden Heat of Passion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Murder Conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC

Accused Had Walked Away After Abusing; Fatal Blow Came Upon Confrontation” – In a significant ruling Punjab and Haryana High Court partly allowed the appeal of Manjit Singh @ Sahib, altering his conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), holding that the occurrence was a result of a sudden quarrel and not premeditated. The Division Bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed that the accused had not come with the intention to kill and had already begun walking away from the complainant’s house when he was confronted, which led to the fatal altercation.

The case arose from FIR No.137 dated 25.06.2002, lodged at Police Station Shahkot, based on the statement of Sarwan Singh. According to him, around 11 PM on the night of 24.06.2002, Manjit Singh, who was the co-brother (sandhu) of his younger son Amrik Singh, arrived at their dera, knocked on the door, and began hurling abuses. Sarwan Singh and his elder son Hardial Singh (the deceased) opened the door and followed the accused towards the road. It was there that Manjit Singh allegedly struck Hardial Singh on the head with a small axe, causing a fatal injury, and also inflicted an injury on Sarwan Singh when he tried to intervene.

The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 323 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the former and six months’ rigorous imprisonment for the latter. On appeal, the High Court, while affirming the conviction under Section 323 IPC, modified the conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC and reduced the sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

The Court carefully scrutinised the testimonies of the key eyewitnesses, namely Sarwan Singh (PW-8) and Amrik Singh (PW-9), both of whom were family members of the deceased. Though related, their evidence was found to be consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and free from material contradictions. The post-mortem report presented by Dr. Ajay Kumar (PW-3) confirmed a deep incised wound on the parietal region of the skull, which had cut through the underlying bone. The medical expert further stated that the injury could have been caused by the axe recovered during investigation and that the cause of death was neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock.

The Court held that the act of the accused did not indicate any intention to commit murder. Referring to the site plan, the Bench observed that Manjit Singh had already left the gate and was on the road when the complainant and the deceased approached him. The accused then inflicted a single blow on the head of the deceased, which proved fatal. The Court noted that this sequence of events suggested that the accused had not come prepared to kill and the fatal act was committed in the heat of passion, upon sudden provocation.

Relying on Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the Court explained that culpable homicide is not murder if the act is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and if the accused has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The Bench noted that Manjit Singh had inflicted only one blow, did not continue the assault, and there was no evidence of cruelty or disproportionate action.

The Court also upheld the conviction under Section 323 IPC for causing simple hurt to Sarwan Singh. Dr. Vijay Kumar (PW-4), who examined the complainant shortly after the incident, recorded lacerated and abrasion injuries consistent with the version given by the prosecution. The Court found no reason to disbelieve the presence of injuries and the medical corroboration lent credence to the complainant’s testimony.

In conclusion, the High Court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of six months' RI under Section 323 IPC was maintained, and both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Court granted set-off for the period already undergone and directed that the appellant be arrested to undergo the remaining sentence.

The decision reaffirms that in cases where an act is committed in the heat of passion without any premeditated intention, and the incident is sudden, the courts must distinguish between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder by carefully applying the exceptions under Section 300 IPC.

Date of Decision: 22 May 2025