Summary
A conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for a death caused in a quarrel between cousins over a common field boundary was altered to Section 304 Part I. The Court found the death homicidal and the appellant responsible, but held that the assault with a stick and the blunt side of an axe during a sudden fight near the accused's house, without premeditation, undue advantage or cruelty, attracted Exception 4 to Section 300. Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (6 years 10 months).
Issues
- Whether the conviction could be sustained on the testimony of eye-witnesses who were relatives of the deceased.
- Whether the offence fell under Section 302 IPC or could be altered to the lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC by applying Exception 4 to Section 300.
Provisions considered
- Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The concurrent findings that the death was homicidal and that the appellant and the co-accused caused the fatal injuries were upheld, but the Court held that the case did not fall within Section 302 because the ingredients of murder were displaced by Exception 4 to Section 300. (¶¶ 7, 8, 14)
- Section 300, Exception 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860Exception 4 (culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly) was applied: the incident occurred near the accused's house in a quarrel between closely related neighbours, the weapons (a stick and the blunt side of an axe) were ordinary farm implements, the sharp side of the axe was not used, and there was no undue advantage or cruelty. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
- Section 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code, 1860On applying Exception 4 to Section 300 the conviction under Section 302 was converted to Section 304 Part I, and the appellant, who had undergone 6 years and 10 months, was sentenced to the period already undergone. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Held
- The fact that the eye-witnesses are relatives of the deceased is not by itself a ground to discard their testimony; here the accused were themselves first cousins of the deceased. The only requirement is that such testimony be scrutinised with greater caution and circumspection. On that scrutiny, and on the post-mortem report and the medical officer's evidence, the findings that the death was homicidal and that the appellant and co-accused caused the injuries were not disturbed. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11)
- The place of the incident was near the house of the accused, a sudden fight in the heat of the moment arising from previous enmity could not be ruled out, and the weapons used (a stick and the blunt side of an axe) are easily available in any agricultural field, so premeditation could not be inferred. Had the intention been to kill, there was no reason for the co-accused not to use the sharp side of the axe; the nature of the injuries did not show undue advantage or cruelty. The appellant was therefore entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and the offence fell under Section 304 Part I, not Section 302. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part I IPC; appellant sentenced to the period already undergone and directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.