Summary
The Supreme Court partly allowed the principal accused’s appeal after a fatal stabbing during a sudden political clash. Private defence did not justify the lethal chest injury, but the sudden encounter and absence of premeditation brought the homicide within Exception 4 to Section 300. The judgment classified the offence under Section 304 Part I and reduced imprisonment to the period already undergone. The State’s challenge to the other accused persons’ murder acquittal failed for lack of established common intention.
Issues
- Whether the fatal stabbing was justified by private defence.
- Whether the sudden fight warranted modification of the murder conviction.
- Whether the remaining accused shared a common intention to kill.
Held
- The evidence did not establish that the accused had created the reported earlier disturbance or anticipated the victims’ arrival. Political rivalry and simultaneous presence did not establish a shared intention to cause the death; the other accused persons’ murder acquittal required no interference. (¶ 18–19)
- The injured witnesses consistently attributed the fatal stabbing to Mani. His relatively minor injury did not justify inflicting a lethal wound on the chest; private defence does not permit harm exceeding necessity. (¶ 20)
- The encounter was sudden, without foreknowledge of the other group’s movements or personal enmity beyond political differences. The ensuing heat-of-passion fight attracted Exception 4 to Section 300. The Court expressly treated the offence as Section 304 Part I and reduced imprisonment to time already served, retaining the fine. (¶ 21–24)
Result
Mani’s appeal partly allowed: murder conviction modified to the offence classified in the judgment under Section 304 Part I; imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone and Rs 20,000 fine retained. State appeal against the other accused persons’ murder acquittal dismissed.