No Work No Pay: Delhi High Court Denies Back Wages To Reinstated Army Officer State Cannot Use 'Delay & Laches' To Evade Compensation For Land Taken Without Authority Of Law: Calcutta High Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Jail Appeal Solely On 3157-Day Delay; Orders Release Of Life Convict After 22 Years In Jail 138 NI Act | Failure To Produce Income Tax Returns Not Fatal To Cheque Bounce Case If Debt Is Established: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Public Records Not In Party's 'Power Or Possession' Until Actually Obtained; Leave Not Required For Rebuttal Documents: AP High Court For Conviction Under Section 34 IPC, Prosecution Must Establish Prior Meeting Of Minds & Pre-Arranged Plan: Allahabad High Court Merciless Beating With Blunt Side Of Deadly Weapons To Spread Terror Constitutes Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court CIT Can’t Invoke Revisionary Jurisdiction Merely Because AO’s Enquiry Was ‘Inadequate’ If View Is Plausible: Bombay High Court Mere Presence At Crime Scene Without Proof Of Prior Concert Insufficient To Invoke Section 34 IPC For Murder: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Be Used As Tools For Coercion: Bombay HC Dismisses Application To Implead Developer Without Contractual Nexus, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted For Contingent Contracts Dependent On Third-Party Conveyance: Madras High Court Unlawful Subletting Is A ‘Continuing Wrong’, Fresh Limitation Period Runs As Long As Breach Continues: Bombay High Court Courts Must Specify Payment Timeline In Specific Performance Decrees; Order XX Rule 12A CPC Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Does Not Automatically Rescind Due To Delay; Courts Can Extend Time For Deposit: Supreme Court Madras High Court Quashes Forgery Case Against Mahindra World City After Victims Accept Alternate Land In Settlement Motor Accident Claims: 13-Day FIR Delay Not Fatal; 80% Physical Disability Can Be Treated As 100% Functional Disability: Punjab & Haryana HC Murderer Cannot Inherit Property From Victim Through Wills; Section 25 Hindu Succession Act Bar Applies To Testamentary Succession: Supreme Court Courts Must Pierce Veil Of Clever Drafting To Reject Suits Barred By Benami Law; 2016 Amendments Are Retrospective: Supreme Court Indian Railways Is A Consumer, Not A Deemed Distribution Licensee; Must Pay Cross-Subsidy Surcharge For Open Access: Supreme Court Technical Rules Of Evidence Act Do Not Apply To Departmental Enquiries: Supreme Court Public Employment Cannot Be Converted Into An Instrument Of Fraud; Police Personnel Using Dual Identity Strikes At Root Of Service: Supreme Court

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