Summary
The complainant challenged conversion of a murder conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC. The accused had arrived armed and fired at an unarmed woman from close range. The Court held that the circumstances did not attract the sudden-fight exception and restored the trial court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Issues
- Whether absence of pre-planning and a claimed heat-of-passion quarrel justified Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC on the proved facts.
- Whether findings made when acquitting the other accused assisted the person who fired the fatal shot.
Held
- Exception 4 requires a sudden fight involving mutual provocation and blows, without undue advantage. The accused arrived with a firearm, fired at close range at an unarmed victim and faced no further grave and sudden provocation. The High Court wrongly applied the exception merely because it considered the crime unplanned and committed in passion. (¶¶ 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.5)
- Close-range firing in these circumstances fell within clause fourthly of Section 300: the accused was expected to know the act was imminently dangerous and would in all probability cause death or the specified fatal bodily injury. The murder conviction was proper. (¶ 8.6)
- Observations concerning absence of common intention when acquitting the other accused did not benefit the proved shooter. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court’s conversion to Section 304 Part I IPC was set aside and the trial court’s Section 302 conviction restored. The accused was directed to surrender within three months to undergo the trial court’s sentence.