MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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