Summary
Following an armed assault arising from a family dispute, the Court maintained one accused’s murder conviction but reduced another’s conviction to hurt with a dangerous weapon. With common-intention and unlawful-assembly liability excluded below and no State appeal, each accused was responsible for his own act. The second accused’s neck abrasions did not establish responsibility for death.
Issues
- Whether the armed assault attracted the sudden-fight exception to murder.
- Whether each accused’s individual injury supported the conviction where Sections 34 and 149 were unavailable.
Provisions considered
- Section 300, Fourthly and Exception 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860The forceful skull-fracturing sickle blow attracted murder liability, and the armed arrival to settle a dispute excluded the claimed sudden-fight exception on these facts. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
Held
- Medical evidence supported the eyewitness account: a sickle’s blunt outer side could cause the lacerated head wound described by the doctor. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- Even assuming a verbal altercation, arrival with sickles, an iron pipe and staffs for a proposed panchayat did not support an unpremeditated heat-of-passion defence. The first accused’s forceful head blow was imminently dangerous and satisfied Section 300 Fourthly. (¶¶ 3, 6, 7, 8)
- The High Court had excluded Sections 34 and 149, and the State had not appealed. Individual responsibility therefore controlled. The second accused’s pipe blow caused abrasions incapable of causing death, supporting Section 324 rather than Section 302; the other appellants’ individual convictions required no interference. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeals of accused 1, 3, 5 and 9 were dismissed. Accused 2’s conviction was changed from Section 302 to Section 324 and his sentence reduced to time served; his bail bond was discharged. Accused 1’s bail was cancelled and immediate custody directed to serve the remaining sentence. Pending applications were disposed of.