Use of Modified Trademark 'MAHINDRA ZEO' Does Not Infringe Plaintiff’s 'EZIO': Delhi High Court High Court Quashes Proceedings for Two Accused in Unauthorized Construction Case, Criticizes Arbitrary Implication Commissioner Duty Bound to Decide Appeal on Merits: High Court Clarifies Application of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Dismissal of Petitions Seeking Quashing of Proceedings in Fraudulent Land Transactions Involving Government-Vested Land: Calcutta High Court Quashing FIR in Dowry Harassment Case Not Justified Without Thorough Investigation," Rules Kerala High Court Deletion of Name from Revenue Records Without Notice Violates Principles of Natural Justice: Andhra Pradesh High Court Delay in Seeking Compassionate Appointment Defeats Purpose of Scheme: Orissa High Court Overturns Single Judge Order Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Temporary Injunction in LLP Fraud Case: No Prima Facie Evidence of Fraud Established Kerala High Court Upholds Departmental Proceedings Against Police Officer on Deputation for Immigration Duty Judicial Review Under Article 226 Is Not an Appeal Over Disciplinary Findings: Punjab and Haryana High Court Lack of Medical and Scientific Evidence Prevents Conviction in Sodomy Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused Under POCSO Act Overwriting and Minor Discrepancies Do Not Vitiate Valid Execution of Will: Calcutta High Court Full Back Wages Awarded to Dismissed Co-operative Bank Employee for Suspension Period: Kerala High Court Character Assassination by Husband Justifies Wife's Refusal to Co-Habit: Orissa High Court Upholds Maintenance Award to Wife Defendants Forfeited Tenancy by Denouncing Plaintiffs' Title: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules in Land Dispute Procedural Rules Must Facilitate Justice, Not Obstruct It, Says Court While Allowing Applications for Additional Documents in a Commercial Suit: Andhra Pradesh High Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeals Over Disputed Sale Deeds, Affirms Need for Concrete Evidence of Minor Status

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​.

Similar News