Summary
A day after being reprimanded by his uncle over a quarrel, the appellant met him near the village bus stand in Punjab in July 1998, abused him and struck a single blow on the head with a 'bahi' (the wooden side of a cot frame); the uncle died the next day of the head injury. The trial court acquitted him on grounds including delay in the FIR and inconsistency between the medical and ocular evidence, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed, convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court held the homicide proved by the two eyewitness sons, the medical evidence and the recovery of the blood-stained bahi on the appellant's disclosure, but found no intention to kill: he was provoked by the previous day's reprimand, the weapon was not dangerous, and a single blow was struck without knowledge that it would cause death.
Issues
- Whether a single blow with the wooden side of a cot frame on the head of the deceased, inflicted after a quarrel the previous day, amounts to murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 299, 300, 302 and 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code, 1860Applying the distinction drawn in Mohd. Rafiq and the Pulicherla Nagaraju factors (nature of weapon, single blow, provocation, premeditation), the appellant had neither the intention to kill his own uncle nor the knowledge that one blow would cause death; the offence was culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Held
- The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died of the head injury inflicted by the appellant: the post-mortem showed the main injury on the head, both eyewitnesses said the appellant struck their father there with a bahi, and the weapon was recovered from the hiding place he disclosed. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Intention and knowledge, and the degree of the act, decide whether a homicide is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant, furious at the previous day's reprimand, was armed with a wooden cot leg which is not a dangerous weapon, struck a single blow and may have wanted only to punish his uncle; he had neither the intention to kill nor the knowledge that one blow would cause death, so the conviction falls under Section 304 Part II, not Section 302 IPC. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- The appellant having been in custody from arrest in 1998 to acquittal in 2001 and again from surrender in 2014, more than eight years in all, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone, the fine imposed by the High Court being maintained. (¶¶ 18, 19)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment of 03.04.2014 modified: conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside, the appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone with the fine as imposed, and to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.