Summary
The appellant and his father were drinking together at home when a quarrel broke out, and the appellant beat his father to death with a piece of wood. A neighbour saw the assault. The post-mortem found eleven injuries to the head, neck, chest and abdomen, including a fractured sternum and multiple broken ribs. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, and the High Court affirmed. Notice in the Supreme Court was confined to whether the offence fell under Section 304 Part I IPC. The Court refused to apply Exception 4 to Section 300. Intoxication is no defence under Section 86 IPC. Though there was no premeditation, repeated blows to vital parts showed that the appellant acted in a cruel and unusual manner. Noting that he had served 12 years, the Court directed the State to consider remission once he completes the mandatory period under its policy.
Issues
- Whether a fatal assault on the father during a drunken quarrel falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight) so as to reduce the offence to Section 304 Part I
- Whether intoxication affects the knowledge attributable to the accused
Provisions considered
- Section 300, Exception 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860A sudden fight without premeditation is not enough where the offender took undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, as shown by repeated blows to vital parts. (¶¶ 13, 14, 21, 22)
- Section 86, Indian Penal Code, 1860Voluntary intoxication is no defence, and the accused is treated as having the knowledge he would have had if sober. (¶¶ 17, 18, 20)
- Sections 302 and 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction for murder was maintained, and the plea to reduce it to culpable homicide not amounting to murder was rejected. (¶¶ 8, 22)
Held
- Though father and son had no prior dispute and the quarrel arose under the influence of liquor, intoxication is no defence in view of Section 86 IPC. (¶ 20)
- Exception 4 requires not only absence of premeditation but also that the offender did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner. Eleven injuries inflicted repeatedly on the head, neck, chest and abdomen with a piece of wood, breaking the sternum and several ribs, showed a merciless attack aimed at ending the father's life. The case falls within Manokaran, and the conviction under Section 302 stands. (¶¶ 14, 15, 21, 22)
- Since the appellant had already undergone 12 years of actual sentence, the State was directed to consider his case for remission as soon as he completes the mandatory sentence under the applicable policy. (¶¶ 8, 23)
Result
Appeal disposed of. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was maintained, with a direction to the State to consider remission on completion of the mandatory period under its policy; parties to bear their own costs.