Sudden Quarrel and Absence of Premeditation Shift Offence 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC: Gujarat High Court

Gujarat High Court has modified the conviction of two appellants who were initially sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC (Murder). The Court reduced their conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC) and sentenced them to 8 years of simple imprisonment, observing that the fatal assault arose out of a sudden quarrel during a card game, without premeditation or intent to cause death.

The Court reasoned that while the appellants had knowledge that their actions could cause death, there was no prior intention or preparation to commit murder, warranting the application of Section 304 Part II IPC.

The incident occurred on October 30, 2016, during Diwali holidays. The appellants, the deceased (Bhavsinh Thakor), the complainant (Ram Ramshankar Prahlad Yadav), and a juvenile (child in conflict with law) were co-workers residing in company-provided accommodation at Yamuna Proteins Mills.

While playing cards, a verbal altercation escalated into a physical fight. The appellants and the juvenile used iron rods and an iron strip lying nearby to assault the deceased, causing serious injuries to his head and body. When the complainant intervened, he too sustained injuries. The deceased later succumbed to his injuries at a hospital in Vadodara.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 324, 326, and 114 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged the conviction, seeking a reduction of the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC) on the grounds that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel without premeditation.

Whether the appellants' actions amounted to "murder" under Section 302 IPC or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" under Section 304 IPC.

Whether the case satisfied any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

The Court observed that the assault occurred during a heated argument arising out of a card game. There was no evidence to suggest pre-planning or pre-arming by the appellants. The weapons used (iron rods and strip) were picked up at the scene, indicating a lack of preparation or intent to kill.

"The appellants and the deceased were co-workers residing together. A sudden quarrel took place during a card game, and the appellants acted impulsively in the heat of the moment." [Para 12]

The Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which covers cases where:

The act is committed without premeditation;

The act occurs in a sudden fight;

The act is committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel;

There is no undue advantage or cruel manner of attack.

The Court held that the assault satisfied these conditions, bringing the case under culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

"The evidence shows a sudden fight without premeditation. The appellants used iron rods lying at the spot and acted in the heat of passion. The incident does not qualify as murder under Section 302 IPC." [Para 12]

While there was no intent to kill, the appellants had knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death, particularly due to the location and nature of the injuries inflicted on the head. The postmortem report confirmed that the deceased suffered intracranial hemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the head, which was sufficient to cause death.

"The appellants could be attributed with the knowledge that their actions were likely to cause death, bringing the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC." [Para 12]

The complainant (PW-6), an injured eye-witness, provided consistent and reliable testimony. He confirmed that the assault arose from a sudden quarrel during a card game and that the weapons were picked up at the scene. His account was corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of weapons.

The Court noted that:

There was no history of animosity or prior enmity between the parties.

The appellants were not armed in advance.

The fight escalated spontaneously during the card game.

Considering the lack of premeditation and the appellants' age (19 years at the time), the Court reduced the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced them to 8 years of simple imprisonment.

Distinguished between acts done with intent to kill and acts done with knowledge of likely consequences, reducing murder charges to culpable homicide.

The Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction and sentence as follows:

Conviction under Sections 302 and 114 IPC set aside.

Conviction altered to Section 304 Part II IPC.

Sentence Reduced:

8 years' simple imprisonment for Section 304 Part II IPC.

Rest of the trial court’s findings and sentences (for Sections 324, 326 IPC) remained unaltered.

Directions:

The registry was directed to return the records and proceedings to the trial court for compliance.

This judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder by examining the circumstances, intent, and knowledge involved in the commission of the offence. The Court's decision reflects a balanced approach, recognizing the lack of premeditation while holding the appellants accountable for their actions.

Date of Decision: November 29, 2024