Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Teasing by Children Cannot Be Considered Grave and Sudden Provocation Under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC: Gauhati High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Man Convicted of Murdering a 7-Year-Old Boy

28 September 2024 2:15 PM

By: sayum


Gauhati High Court dismissed an appeal in Albish Banda alias Lakra vs. State of Assam, affirming the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for the murder of a 7-year-old child. The court ruled that the killing was not a case of sudden provocation and rejected the defense’s argument under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.

The incident occurred on March 5, 2019, in Baksa District, Assam, when the appellant, Albish Banda, murdered Rajen Ekka, a 7-year-old child, by attacking him with a dao. The appellant claimed that he was provoked by teasing from the children while collecting sour fruits, leading to the deadly attack. However, two eyewitnesses, who were present at the scene, testified that the attack was sudden and unprovoked.

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court in Baksa in February 2021 and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. He appealed, arguing that the murder was a result of grave and sudden provocation, making it a case under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appellant’s actions could be classified under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which reduces the charge from murder (Section 302) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304), if the act is committed due to sudden provocation without premeditation.

The defense argued that the minor children’s taunting constituted provocation, and the act was done in the heat of passion. The prosecution, however, pointed to the nature of the injuries inflicted, which were excessive and on vital parts of the body, including the neck and head.

The Gauhati High Court, presided by Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Mitali Thakuria, rejected the defense’s argument. The court held that teasing by children could not be considered as grave provocation and emphasized that the number and severity of the injuries indicated that the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual manner, which disqualified him from the protection under Exception 4.

The court noted that the appellant had inflicted multiple deep cuts on the child’s neck, face, and skull, which led to instantaneous death. The judges observed that these actions demonstrated a cruel intent, and the appellant had taken undue advantage of the situation by attacking a defenseless 7-year-old child.

The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anil Kumar vs. State of Kerala (2023), which clarified that for Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to apply, the offender must not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and life sentence for the appellant under Section 302 IPC were upheld. The court also commended the Amicus Curiae for their assistance in the case.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2024

Albish Banda alias Lakra vs. State of Assam​.

Latest Legal News