$~
*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI
+CRL.A.589/2004

BANSI…..Appellant
ThroughMr.MadhukarPandeywith
Ms.DamanjitKaur,Mr.Shubham
SharmaandMr.PraneshMisra,
Advocates.

versus

THESTATE(NCTOFDELHI)…..Respondent
ThroughMr.RajatKatyal,Advocateforthe
StatewithSISudhirRathorPSMoti
Nagar.

%DateofDecision:09thMay,2019

CORAM:
HON’BLEMR.JUSTICEMANMOHAN
HON’BLEMS.JUSTICESANGITADHINGRASEHGAL
JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN,J:(Oral)

1.Presentappealhasbeenfiledchallengingthejudgmentofconviction
dated15thMay,2004andanorderonsentencedated19thMay,2004,passed
bythelearnedASJwhereunder,theappellanthasbeenheldguiltyunder
Sections302/Section307/Section324IPCandsentencedtoundergoimprisonmentforlife
andtopayfineofRs.500/-underSection302IPC.Indefaultofpaymentof
fine,hewasdirectedtoundergosimpleimprisonmentoftwomonths.
Further,theappellanthasbeensentencedtoimprisonmentforlifeunder

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page1of26
Section307IPCandpayfineofRs.500/-.Indefaultofpaymentoffine,he
wasdirectedtoundergosimpleimprisonmentoftwomonths.Lastly,the
appellanthasbeensentencedtoundergorigorousimprisonmentforoneyear
underSection324IPC.Allthesentencesweredirectedtorunconcurrently.
TherelevantportionoftheTrialCourtjudgmentdated15thMay,2004is
reproducedhereinbelow:-

―27.PW1AmritRamhasfullysupportedthecaseoftheprosecution
onallthematerialpointsandinallthematerialparticulars.Hehas
statedthatontheallegeddateandtimehewaspresentatthehouse
ofhisPhoopha,deceasedRajKumaratBasaiDaraPur.Atabout
11PMhewastakingmealatthehouseofdeceasedRajKumar.His
brotherPW2Chandeshwarwasalsowiththematthattime.Inthe
meantimeaccusedBansiwhowastheneighbourerofdeceasedRaj
Kumarcamethereandknockedatthedoor.AccusedBansicalled
RajKumardeceasedandtookdeceasedwithhimbutdeceasedRaj
Kumarreturnedtothehouse.ThereafteraccusedBansiagaincame
tothehouseofdeceasedandheagaintookdeceasedRajKumarwith
him.PW1alsoaccompaniedwithdeceasedRajKumar.Hehas
furtherstatedthatdeceasedRajKumarandaccusedBansiwere
takingliquorandthatthereafteranaltercationtookplacebetween
deceasedRajKumarandaccusedBansi.Accusedwaslockedinside
hisroomandtheyboltedtheroomfromoutside.AccusedBansi
againstartedabusingRajKumardeceasedandaccusedcontinued
abusingdeceased.AccusedwasallegingthatdeceasedRajKumar
hadillicitrelationswiththewifeofaccusedandonthataccounthe
wasabusingRajKumardeceased.Accusedwassayingthathe
wouldkillRajKumarandhiswife.ThereafterdeceasedRajKumar
wenttothehouseofhislandlordandbroughthimatthespot.
LandlordalsotriedtomakeBansiunderstandbuthedidnotpayany
attention.DeceasedRajKumarthenopenedthekundifromoutside
andaccusedBansicameoutsidetheroom.AssoonasdeceasedRaj
KumaropenedthedooraccusedBansistabbeddeceasedRajKumar
withaknifeonhisabdomen.AftercausinginjuriestodeceasedRaj
Kumar,accusedBansialsoinflictedknifeinjuriestohiswifeonher
abdomen.WhenPW1AmritRamtriedtointervene,healsoreceived

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page2of26
injuriesonfingerofhislefthand.LandlordthentookdeceasedRaj
KumartoKhetarpalNursingHomeinacarwhereRajKumardied.
WifeofaccusedBansiwasalsoremovedtoHandaNursingHome,
RajaGarden,Delhi.

PW1hasbeencrossexaminedonbehalfofaccusedbutnothing
materialcameoutfromhiscrossexaminationwhichmayhelpthe
accusedinanymanner.Hehasdeniedthesuggestionthatdeceased
RajKumarwashavingillicitrelationswiththewifeofaccusedand
thathewasnotpresentatthespotatthetimeofincidentandis
deposingfalsely.Hehasalsodeniedthesuggestionthatbloodwas
notliftedfromthespotinhispresence.Hehasalsodeniedthe
suggestionthathealongwithdeceasedRajKumarhadtornoffthe
clothesofwifeofaccusedandalsomisbehavedwithherandthathe
hadinflictedtheinjuriesonthewifeofaccused.

28)PW2Chandeshwarhasalsosupportedthecaseofthe
prosecutiononallthematerialpointsandhascorroboratedthe
testimonyofPW1inallthematerialparticulars.Althoughhehas
alsobeencrossexaminedonbehalfofaccused,yetnothingmaterial
cameoutfromhismouthwhichmayhelptheaccused.Hehasstated
inhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedthataccusedRaj
Kumarwasnothisrelativeanddeceasedwasonlyknowntohim.He
hasdeniedthesuggestionthatheanddeceasedRajKumarhadgone
totheroomofaccusedandthatheanddeceasedRajKumarhad
torntheclothesofthewifeofaccusedandalsomisbehavedwithher.
HehasdeniedthesuggestionthatdeceasedRajKumarwashaving
illicitrelationswiththewifeofaccusedorthatheisdeposingfalsely.

29)PW3SatinderSinghislandlordofthehouseinwhichaccused
BansiandPW2Chandeshwarwerelivingastenants.Hehasalso
supportedtheprosecutioncaseonallthematerialpointsexceptthe
factthathecannotsayhowdeceasedRajKumarreceivedinjuries
buthehasstatedthatdeceasedRajKumarhadtoldhimthathehad
beenhitbyaccusedwithknifeonhisabdomen.Hehasstatedthathe
hadnotseenaccusedcausinginjuriestodeceasedRajKumarand
thathehadalsonotstatedthisfacttothepoliceinhisstatement.He
alsostatedthathehadnotseenaccusedcausinginjuriestohiswife
norhehadmadeanystatementtothepolice.Thiswitnesshasbeen
declaredhostileandpermittedtobecrossexaminedbytheLd.Addl.

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page3of26

PPfortheState.HehasdeniedallthesuggestionsofLd.Addl.PP
fortheStateinhiscrossexamination.PW3hasnotbeencross
examinedonbehalfofaccusedalthoughopportunityforthesame
hasbeengiventotheLd.counselforaccused.Itremainsun-
challengedonrecordthatdeceasedRajKumarhadtoldhimthat
deceasedhadbeenhitbyaccusedwithknifeonhisstomach.

30)PW7Smt.Geetaisthewifeofaccused.Shehasnotsupported
theprosecutioncaseandhasbeendeclaredhostileandhasbeen
permittedtobecrossexaminedbytheLd.Addl.PPfortheState.
ShehasdeniedthesuggestionthatherhusbandaccusedBansihad
causedinjuriestodeceasedRajKumarwithaknifeonhisabdomen
andwhensheintervenedaccusedalsocausedinjuriesonher
stomachwiththesameknife.Shehasalsodeniedthesuggestionthat
accusedusedtosuspectherofhavingillicitrelationswiththe
deceasedRajKumar.Itseemsthatbeingwifeofaccusedshehasnot
supportedthecaseofprosecutioninordertosavetheaccusedfrom
legalpunishment.Inherexaminationinchiefshehasstatedthat
deceasedRajKumarremovedherclothesforciblyanddeceased
committedrapewithher.InthisrespectPW15InspectorSSJakhar
hasstatedthatPW7Smt.Geetadidnotdiscloseaboutanyrape.On
enquiriesPW15cametoknowthataccusedhadsuspectedhiswife
Smt.Geetaaboutsomeillicitrelationsanditcouldbethemotiveof
murder.Hehasalsoadmittedascorrectthatitwasthereasonfor
murderofdeceasedRajKumar.PW15hasstatedthatherecorded
thestatementofPW3SatinderSinghandPW7Smt.Geeta.Hehas
alsostatedthathedidnotreceiveanycomplaintfromanyofthe
partybeforethisincident.HehasalsodeniedthesuggestionofLd.
Counselonbehalfofaccusedthathedidnottakeanyactionagainst
complainantAmritRamunderSection376IPC.Hehasstatedthat
Smt.Geetadidnotallegeanythingabouttherape.Pleaofthe
accusedBansiappearstobeanafterthought.

31)ThetestimoniesofPW1AmritRamandPW2Chandeshwar
appeartobequitenatural,reliableandtrustworthy.Theirpresence
atthespotatthetimeofallegedincidentcannotbedoubted.There
isnoreasononrecordastowhytheyshoulddeposefalselyagainst
accusedandastowhybothofthemshouldfalselyimplicatehimin
thiscase.ThemerefactthatPW1AmritRamistherelativeof

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page4of26
deceasedRajKumarisnotsufficienttodiscardhistestimony.
Moreover,PW2hasstatedthatRajKumardeceasedwasnothis
relativeandthathewasonlyknowntohim.Thereisnoreasonon
recordastowhyPW2shoulddeposefalselyagainstaccusedandas
towhyPW2shouldimplicatehiminthiscase.‖

2.Thesentenceoftheappellantwassuspendedvideorderdated26th
September,2006.Theappellanthasundergonesentenceforfiveyearsand
onemonthandearnedaremissionforninemonthsandtwenty-fivedays.

3.On01stMay,2019,learnedcounselfortheappellantstatedbeforethis
Courtthathehadinstructionsnottoaddressargumentsonmeritsofthe
case,buttoaddresstheCourtontheorderonsentenceonly.Hehadstated
thatitwasafitcasewheretheconvictionunderSection302IPCoughttobe
modifiedtoSection304,Part-IISectionIPC.

4.Mr.MadhukarPandey,learnedcounselfortheappellantstatesthat
therewasasuddenandinstantaneousaltercationwithoutpremeditation
betweentheappellantandthedeceased,whiletheywereconsumingliquor,
ontheissueofillicitrelationshipbetweenthedeceasedandthewifeofthe
appellant,whichultimatelyledtotheappellantinflictingasingleblowupon
thedeceasedintheheatofpassionwithasmallkitchenknife,whichwas
alreadyavailableintheroomalongwithotherutensils.

5.Learnedcounselfortheappellantpointsoutthattheprimeeye
witnessesinthepresentcasearePW-1,PW-2,PW-3andPW-7.Hestates
thatthoughPW-1andPW-2arerelativesofthedeceased,yetabareperusal
oftheirdepositionswouldreflectthattheappellanthadaccusedPW-1and
PW-2ofmisbehavingwithhiswife.

6.Learnedcounselfortheappellantcontendsthatthereisnothingon

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page5of26
recordtoshowthattheappellanthadtakenundueadvantageoforactedina
cruelorunusualmannertowardsthedeceasedashewaslockedinsidea
roomattheinstanceofdeceasedbyPW-1andPW-2andhadnoopportunity
todoanyovertactthatwastohisadvantage.

7.HesubmitsthatthepresentcaseisbeyondthescopeofSection300
IPCandatbesttheappellantcouldhavebeenconvictedunderSection304
Part-IIIPC.Insupportofthesubmission,learnedcounselfortheappellant
reliesuponthejudgmentsoftheApexCourtinMuthuVs.Stateby
InspectorofPolice,TamilNadu,(2009)17SCC433;BehraVs.Stateof
Rajasthan,(2000)10SCC225andKunhayippuVs.StateofKerala,(2000)
10SCC307.Therelevantportionsofthesaidjudgmentsarereproduced
hereinbelow:-

(i)MuthuVs.StatebyInspectorofPolice,TamilNadu;(2009)17SCC
433:-

―12.WemayalsorefertoException4toSection300IPCwhich
readsasunder:

―Exception4.–Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifitis
committedwithoutpremeditationinasuddenfightinthe
heatofpassionuponasuddenquarrelandwithoutthe
offender’shavingtakenundueadvantageoractedinacruel
orunusualmanner.‖

13.ThedifferencebetweenException1andException4toSection
300hasbeenexplainedbythisCourtinSectionPappuv.Stateof
M.P.[(2006)7SCC391:(2006)3SCC(Cri)283]Inouropinion,
thepresentcasealsocomesunderException4toSection300IPC
sincetheingredientsofException4areallsatisfiedinthefactsof
thepresentcase.

14.Inouropinion,throwingwasteandrubbishinsidethehouseor
shopofsomebodyiscertainlyagraveandsuddenprovocation.
Everyonewishestokeephispremisesneatandclean,andislikely
tolosehisself-controlinsuchasituation.Theincidentinquestion

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page6of26
occurredinasuddenfightandaheatofpassionbyasudden
quarrelwithouttheappellanthavingtakenundueadvantageor
actedinacruelorunusualmanner.Hencetheappellantisentitled
tothebenefitofExceptions1and4andthecasecomesunder
Section304IPC.

15.Thenextquestioniswhetherthecasewillcomeunderthefirst
partorthesecondpartofSection304IPC.Inouropinionitwill
comeunderthesecondpartinviewofthedecisionsofthisCourt
inSectionRameshVithalraoThakrev.StateofMaharashtra[(2009)17
SCC438:AIR1995SC1453],SectionSarupSinghv.Stateof
Haryana[(2009)16SCC479:(2010)3SCC(Cri)329],SectionMavila
ThambanNambiarv.StateofKerala[(2009)17SCC441:1997
SCC(Cri)726],SectionSudhirSamantav.StateofW.B.[(1998)1SCC
581:1998SCC(Cri)461],SectionK.RamakrishnanUnnithanv.Stateof
Kerala[(1999)3SCC309:1999SCC(Cri)410:AIR1999SC
1428],SectionTholanv.StateofT.N.[(1984)2SCC133:1984SCC
(Cri)164],SectionJagpativ.StateofM.P.[1994Supp(1)SCC460:

1995SCC(Cri)397:AIR1993SC1360],SectionTarsemSinghv.State
ofPunjab[(2002)2SCC673:2002SCC(Cri)465],SectionHari
Ramv.StateofHaryana[(1983)1SCC193:1983SCC(Cri)159
:AIR1983SC185],SectionRandhirSinghv.StateofPunjab[(1981)4
SCC484:1981SCC(Cri)856],SectionKulwantRaiv.Stateof
Punjab[(1981)4SCC245:1981SCC(Cri)826]
andSectionShankarv.StateofM.P.[(1979)3SCC318:1979SCC(Cri)
632:AIR1979SC1532]‖

(ii)BehraVs.StateofRajasthan;(2000)10SCC225:-

―2……..Thelearnedcounselfurtherstatedthatevenifthe
evidenceofPWs2and3isbelieved,takingintoaccountthefact
andscenariounderwhichtheallegedassaultwasgivenbythe
accused,theoffencecouldnotbeunderSection302butatthe
bestwouldbeunderSection304PartII…………..Fromthe
evidenceofPWs2and3itiscrystalclearthattheaccusedand
thedeceasedhadsomequarrelinthehouseofBhana.Onthe
roadwhiletheyquarrelledwitheachother,suddenlytheaccused
broughtouttheknifeandgavetheblowwhichstruckthechestof
thedeceased.Onthesefacts,itisdifficulttoholdthatthe

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page7of26
accusedgavetheblowwiththerequisiteintentionofcausing
murderofthedeceased.Inthisviewofthematter,theconviction
oftheappellantunderSection302cannotbesustained.Sincein
angerwhilequarrelling,theaccusedhadgiventheblowwhich
ultimatelyresultedinthedeathofthedeceased,theoffence
wouldbeoneunderSection304PartII.‖

(iii)KunhayippuVs.StateofKerala;(2000)10SCC307:-

―2………..Lastly,thecounselarguedthateveniftheprosecution
caseisbelieved,thentheoffencewouldnotbeoneunderSection
302inasmuchastheaccused,whowasonfriendlytermswiththe
deceasedtillaskingforaglassofjuice,suddenlygaveoneblowand
thatwasfromthebacksidewhich,ofcourse,ultimatelybecame
fatal.

3.Havingexaminedtherivalcontentionsandonscrutinisingthe
twojudgmentsandtheevidenceofthetwoeyewitnesses,thoughwe
agreewiththesubmissionofthelearnedcounselfortheappellant
thatexaminationofAshokKumarcouldhaveunfoldedthe
prosecutioncaseindetailbuttheimpugnedjudgmentoftheHigh
CourtindicatesthereasonsastowhyAshokKumarcouldnotbe
examined,eventhoughhewastobeexaminedbytheCourtitselfas
Witness1,andaccordingtotheimpugnedjudgment,the
whereaboutsofthesaidAshokKumarcouldnotbefoundoutfor
whichhecouldnotbeexamined…………….Fromtheevidenceof
PW1itappearsthatboththeaccusedandthedeceasedwereina
friendlymoodwhenoneaskedforaglassofjuicefromtheother.
ShortlythereafterwhilethedeceasedhadlefttheshopofPW1,the
accusedwentbehindandgavetheblowinquestionandfurther,the
blowinquestionhadbeengivenfromthebacksideandonlya
singleblowhadbeengiven.Inthesecircumstances,itisdifficultfor
ustoholdthattheaccusedcanbesaidtohavehadthenecessary
intentionforcausingthemurderofthedeceasedwhilegivingthe
blowinquestion,thoughultimatelytheblowhadbecomefatal.We,
therefore,setasidetheconvictionoftheappellantunderSection
302andconvicthimunderSection304PartIIandsentencehimto
imprisonmentfor5years.‖

8.Heemphasisesthattheweaponallegedlyusedbytheappellantwasa

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page8of26
smallvegetableknife,thedimensionsofwhichweresuchthattheappellant
couldhavenoknowledgethatitssingleblowcouldprovefataland/orlikely
tocausedeathofthedeceased.

9.Learnedcounselforappellantlastlystatesthattheappellant-accused
isagedabout50yearsandisthesolebreadearnerofhisfamilycomprising
hiswifeandthreechildren.Hestatesthathiswifeisamerehousewife,
whilehiseldestdaughterandsonarebothunemployedandfinancially
dependentonhim.Healsostatesthathisyoungestdaughterisonlyaged
about10yearsandtheappellantbeingamanofindigentmeanshasto
struggletomaketheendsmeetforhisfamilyandgraveprejudicewouldbe
causedtohimaswellashisfamilyincasethereliefprayedforisnot
granted.

10.Percontra,learnedcounselfortheStatesubmitsthattheessentialpre-
conditionsforapplicationofException4toSection300IPCreadwith
Section304Part-IIarethattheremustbeamutualcombatorsuddenfight-
whichismissinginthepresentcase.

11.Insupportofhissubmission,hereliesuponthejudgmentoftheApex
CourtinKikarSinghVs.StateofRajasthan;AIR1993SC2426,wherein
ithasbeenheldasunder:-

―8.Thecounselattemptedtobringthecasewithinexception4.
Foritsapplicationalltheconditionsenumeratedthereinmustbe
satisfied.Theactmustbecommittedwithoutpremeditationina
suddenfightintheheatofpassion;(2)uponasuddenquarrel;(3)
withouttheoffender’shavingtakenundueadvantage;(4)andthe
accusedhadnotactedinacruelorunusualmanner.Therefore,
theremustbeamutualcombatorexchangingblowsoneach
other.Andhoweverslightthefirstblow,orprovocation,every
freshblowbecomesafreshprovocation.Thebloodisalready
heatedorwarmsupateverysubsequentstroke.Thevoiceof

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page9of26
reasonisheardonneithersideintheheatofpassion.Therefore,it
isdifficulttoapportionbetweenthemrespectivedegreesofblame
withreferencetothestateofthingsatthecommencementofthe
fraybutitmustoccurasaconsequenceofasuddenfighti.e.
mutualcombatandnotonesidetrack.Itmattersnotwhatthe
causeofthequarrelis,whetherrealorimaginary,orwhodraws
orstrikesfirst.Thestrikeoftheblowmustbewithoutanyintention
tokillorseriouslyinjuretheother.Iftwomenstartfightingand
oneofthemisunarmedwhiletheotherusesadeadlyweapon,the
onewhousessuchweaponmustbeheldtohavetakenanundue
advantagedenyinghimtheentitlementtoexception4.Truethe
numberofwoundisnotthecriterion,butthepositionofthe
accusedandthedeceasedwithregardtotheirarmsused,the
mannerofcombatmustbekeptinmindwhenapplyingexception

4.Whenthedeceasedwasnotarmedbuttheaccusedwasand
causedinjuriestothedeceasedwithfatalresults,theexception4
engraftedtoSection300isexceptedandtheoffencescommitted
wouldbeoneofmurder.

9.Theoccasionforsuddenquarrelmustnotonlybesudden
butthepartyassaultedmustbeonanequalfootinginpointof
defence,atleastattheonset.Thisisspeciallysowheretheattack
ismadewithdangerousweapons.Wherethedeceasedwas
unarmedanddidnotcauseanyinjurytotheaccusedeven
followingasuddenquarreliftheaccusedhasinflictedfatelblows
onthedeceased,exception4isnotattractedandcommissionmust
beoneofmurderpunishableunderS.302.Equallyforattracting
exception4itisnecessarythatblowsshouldbeexchangedevenif
theydonotallfindtheirtarget.Evenifthefightisunpremeditated
andsudden,yetiftheinstrumentofmannerofretaliationbe
greatlydisproportionatetotheoffencegiven,andcrueland
dangerousinitsnature,theaccusedcannotbeprotectedunder
exception4.SectionInPandurangNarayanJawalekarv.Stateof
Maharashtra[1979]1SCC132:(AIR1978SC1082),thefacts
provedwerethattheappellantgaveablowontheheadofthe
deceasedoldmanwhowasadvisinghimnottoquarrel.Theinjury
causedtothebrainfromoneendtotheotherresultedinfracture
ascouldappearfromtheevidenceofthedoctor.Itwouldshow
thattheaccusedmusthavestrucktheblowontheheadofthe

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page10of26
deceasedwithanironbarwithverygreatforce.Accordinglyit
washeldthatexception4doesnotapplythoughtherewassudden
quarrelandthatthefightwasnotpremeditatedtocausedeath.It
mustbeshownthattheinjurycausedisnotcruelone.The
convictionforoffenceunderS.302bytheHighCourtreversingthe
acquittalbytrialcourtwasupheld.

10.Iftheweaponusedorthemannerofattackbytheassailant
isoutofallproportiontotheoffencegiventhatcircumstancemust
betakenintoconsiderationtodecidewhetherundueadvantage
hasbeentaken.Whereaperson,duringthecourseofsuddenfight,
withoutpremeditationandprobablyintheheatofpassion,took
undueadvantageandactedinacruelmannerinusingadeadly
weapontherewasnogroundtoholdthathisactdidnotamountto
murder.Therefore,iftheappellantuseddeadlyweaponsagainst
theunarmedmanandstruckhimablowontheheaditmustbe
heldthatheinflictedtheblowswiththeknowledgethattheywould
likelytocausedeathandhehadtakenundueadvantage.Hedid
notstopwiththefirstblow,heinflictedtwomoreblowsonthe
fallenmanandthethirdoneprovedtobefatal.Heactedcruelly
withnojustification.Byhisconducttheappellantdeniedhimself
ofthebenefitofexception4toSectionS.300I.P.C.‖

12.Havingheardlearnedcounselforthepartiesandhavingperusedthe
evidenceonrecord,thisCourtisoftheviewthatitisessentialtofirst
outlinethescopeandambitofException4toSection300IPC.Exception4
toSection300IPC,readsasunder:-

―Exception4.-Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifitiscommitted
withoutpremeditationinasuddenfightintheheatofpassion
uponasuddenquarrelandwithouttheoffenderhavingtaken
undueadvantageoractedinacruelorunusualmanner.‖

13.IntheopinionofthisCourt,toinvokethisexception,fouringredients
havetobesatisfiedi.e.(i)itwasasuddenfight;(ii)therewasno
premeditation;(iii)theactwasdoneinaheatofpassion;and(iv)the

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page11of26
assailanthadnottakenanyundueadvantageoractedinacruelmanner.

14.Oneofusi.e.(Hon’bleMs.JusticeSangitaDhingraSehgalsittingina
DivisionBench)hadanoccasiontoexplaintheambitandscopeofSection
304IPCaswellasException4toSection300IPCinVijayPal.Vs.State
(Govt.ofNCTofDelhi);Crl.A.No.1653/2014dated05.2.2015The
relevantportionofthesaidjudgmentisreproducedhereinbelow:

“WhethertheoffencefallsunderthepurviewofSection304
Part-I

35.SectionInPulicherlaNagaraju@NagarajaReddyv.StateofAndhra
Pradesh(2006)11SCC444theSupremeCourtenumeratedsome
ofthecircumstancesrelevanttofindoutwhethertherewasany
intentiontocausedeathonthepartoftheaccused.TheCourt
observed:

…Therefore,thecourtshouldproceedtodecidethepivotal
questionofintention,withcareandcaution,asthatwilldecide
whetherthecasefallsUnderSection302or304PartIor304
PartII.Manypettyorinsignificantmatters-pluckingofa
fruit,strayingofcattle,quarrelofchildren,utteranceofarude
wordorevenanobjectionableglance,mayleadto
altercationsandgroupclashesculminatingindeaths.Usual
motiveslikerevenge,greed,jealousyorsuspicionmaybe
totallyabsentinsuchcases.Theremaybenointention.There
maybenopremeditation.Infact,theremaynotevenbe
criminality.Attheotherendofthespectrum,theremaybe
casesofmurderwheretheaccusedattemptstoavoidthe
penaltyformurderbyattemptingtoputforthacasethatthere
wasnointentiontocausedeath.Itisforthecourtstoensure
thatthecasesofmurderpunishableUnderSection302,are
notconvertedintooffencespunishableUnderSection304Part
I/II,orcasesofculpablehomicidenotamountingtomurder,
aretreatedasmurderpunishableUnderSection

302.Theintentiontocausedeathcanbegatheredgenerallyfrom
acombinationofafeworseveralofthefollowing,amongother,
circumstances:(i)natureoftheweaponused;(ii)whetherthe

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page12of26
weaponwascarriedbytheaccusedorwaspickedupfromthe
spot;(iii)whethertheblowisaimedatavitalpartofthebody;

(iv)theamountofforceemployedincausinginjury;(v)whether
theactwasinthecourseofsuddenquarrelorsuddenfightorfree
forallfight;(vi)whethertheincidentoccursbychanceorwhether
therewasanypre-meditation;(vii)whethertherewasanyprior
enmityorwhetherthedeceasedwasastranger;(viii)whether
therewasanygraveandsuddenprovocation,andifso,thecause
forsuchprovocation;(ix)whetheritwasintheheatofpassion;

(x)whetherthepersoninflictingtheinjuryhastakenundue
advantageorhasactedinacruelandunusualmanner;(xi)
whethertheaccuseddealtasinglebloworseveralblows.The
abovelistofcircumstancesis,ofcourse,notexhaustiveandthere
maybeseveralotherspecialcircumstanceswithreferenceto
individualcaseswhichmaythrowlightonthequestionof
intention…

36.TheAppellantwasconvictedu/s302oftheSectionIPCinwhichhe
wasconvictedbytheLearnedASJSh.RajeevBansalinthe
impugnedjudgment,butonfurtherevaluationandascontended
bytheappellantthecrimeintheinstantcasedoesnotfullyfall
withintheambitofSectionsection300oftheIPCwhichreadsasunder:

300.Murder.–Exceptinthecaseshereinafterexcepted,
culpablehomicideismurder,iftheactbywhichthedeathis
causedisdonewiththeintentionofcausingdeath,or-
Secondly-Ifitisdonewiththeintentionofcausingsuch
bodilyinjuryastheoffenderknowstobelikelytocausethe
deathofthepersontowhomtheharmiscaused,or-Thirdly-
Ifitisdonewiththeintentionofcausingbodilyinjurytoany
personandthebodilyinjuryintendedtobeinflictedis
sufficientintheordinarycourseofnaturetocausedeath,or
committingtheactknowsthatitissoimminentlydangerous
thatitmust,inallprobability,causedeathorsuchbodily
injuryasislikelytocausedeath,or-

Fourthly-Ifthepersoncommittingtheactknowsthatitisso
imminentlydangerousthatitmust,inallprobability,cause
deathorsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelytocausedeath,and
commitssuchactwithoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskof

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page13of26
causingdeathorsuchinjuryasaforesaid.

Exception1-Whenculpablehomicideisnotmurder-
Culpablehomicideisnotmurderiftheoffender,whilst
deprivedofthepowerofself-controlbygraveandsudden
provocation,causesthedeathofthepersonwhogavethe
provocationorcausesthedeathofanyotherpersonby
mistakeoraccident.

Theaboveexceptionissubjecttothefollowingprovisos:-
First-Thattheprovocationisnotsoughtorvoluntarily
provokedbytheoffenderasanexcuseforkillingordoing
harmtoanyperson.

Secondly-Thattheprovocationisnotgivenbyanythingdone
inobediencetothelaw,orbyapublicservantinthelawful
exerciseofthepowersofsuchpublicservant.
Thirdly-Thattheprovocationisnotgivenbyanythingdone
inthelawfulexerciseoftherightofprivatedefense.
Exception2-Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifthe
offender,intheexerciseingoodfaithoftherightofprivate
defenseofpersonorproperty,exceedsthepowergivento
himbylawandcausesthedeathofthepersonagainstwhom
heisexercisingsuchrightofdefensewithoutpremeditation,
andwithoutanyintentionofdoingmoreharmthanis
necessaryforthepurposeofsuchdefense.

Exception3-Culpablehomicideisnotmurderiftheoffender,
beingapublicservantoraiding.apublicservantactingfor
theadvancementofpublicjustice,exceedsthepowersgiven
tohimbylaw,andcausesdeathbydoinganactwhichhe,in
goodfaith,believestobelawfulandnecessaryforthedue
dischargeofhisdutyassuchpublicservantandwithoutill-
willtowardsthepersonwhosedeathiscaused.
Exception4.-Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifitis
committedwithoutpremeditationinasuddenfightintheheat
ofpassionuponasuddenquarrelandwithouttheoffender
havingtakenundueadvantageoractedinacruelorunusual
manner.

Exception5-Culpablehomicideisnotmurderwhenthe

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page14of26
personwhosedeathiscaused,beingabovetheageof
eighteenyears,suffersdeathortakestheriskofdeathwith
hisownconsent.

302.Punishmentformurder.–Whoevercommitsmurdershall
bepunishedwithdeath,or1[imprisonmentforlife],and
shallalsobeliabletofine.

Thecrimecommittedbytheappellantmaybesaidtohavebeen
committedwithoutpremeditationinasuddenfightintheheatof
passion.

37.InChacko@AniyanKunjuandOrs.Vs.StateofKerala
(2004)12SCC269itwasheldthat:

All”murder”is”culpablehomicide”butnotviceversa.
Speakinggenerally,”culpablehomicide”sans”special
characteristicsofmurderisculpablehomicidenotamounting
tomurder”.Forthepurposeoffixingpunishment,
proportionatetothegravityofthegeneric
offence,SectionIPCpracticallyrecognizesthreedegreesofculpable
homicide.Thefirstis,whatmaybecalled,”culpable
homicideofthefirstdegree”.Thisisthegravestformof
culpablehomicide,whichisdefinedinSection300as
“murder”.Thesecondmaybetermedas”culpablehomicide
oftheseconddegree”.Thisispunishableunderthefirstpart
ofSection304.Then,thereis”culpablehomicideofthethird
degree”.Thisisthelowesttype

10.Theacademicofculpablehomicideandthepunishment
providedforitisalsothelowestamongthepunishments
providedforthethreegrades.Culpablehomicideofthis
degreeispunishableunderthesecondpartofSection304.
Distinctionbetween”murder”and”culpablehomicidenot
amountingtomurder”hasalwaysvexedthecourts.The
confusioniscaused,ifcourtslosingsightofthetruescope
andmeaningofthetermsusedbythelegislatureinthese
sections,allowthemselvestobedrawnintominute
abstractions.Thesafestwayofapproachtotheinterpretation
andapplicationoftheseprovisionsseemstobetokeepin
focusthekeywordsusedinthevariousclausesofSections

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page15of26
299and300.Thefollowingcomparativetablewillbehelpful
inappreciatingthepointsofdistinctionbetweenthetwo
offences:

1.Clause(b)ofSection299correspondswithClauses(2)
and(3)ofSection300.Thedistinguishingfeatureofthemens
rearequisiteunderClause(2)istheknowledgepossessedby
theoffenderregardingtheparticularvictimbeinginsucha
peculiarconditionorstateofhealththattheinternalharm
causedtohimislikelytobefatal,notwithstandingthefact
thatsuchharmwouldnotintheordinarywayofnaturebe
sufficienttocausedeathofapersoninnormalhealthor
condition.Itisnoteworthythatthe”intentiontocausedeath”
isnotanessentialrequirementofClause(2).Onlythe
intentionofcausingthebodilyinjurycoupledwiththe
offender’sknowledgeofthelikelihoodofsuchinjurycausing
thedeathoftheparticularvictimissufficienttobringthe
killingwithintheambitofthisclause.

2.Clause(b)ofSection299doesnotpostulateanysuch
knowledgeonthepartoftheoffender.Instancesofcases
fallingunderClause(2)ofSection300canbewherethe
assailantcausesdeathbyafist-blowintentionallygiven
knowingthatthevictimissufferingfromanenlargedliver,or
enlargedspleenordiseasedheartandsuchblowislikelyto
causedeathofthatparticularpersonasaresultofthe
ruptureoftheliver,orspleenorthefailureoftheheart,as
thecasemaybe.Iftheassailanthadnosuchknowledge
aboutthediseaseorspecialfrailtyofthevictim,noran
intentiontocausedeathorbodilyinjurysufficientinthe
ordinarycourseofnaturetocausedeath,theoffencewillnot
bemurder,eveniftheinjurywhichcausedthedeath,was
intentionallygiven.InClause(3)ofSection300,insteadof
thewords”likelytocausedeath”occurringinthe
correspondingClause(b)ofSection299,thewords
“sufficientintheordinarycourseofnature”havebeenused.
Obviously,thedistinctionliesbetweenabodilyinjurylikely
tocausedeathandabodilyinjurysufficientintheordinary
courseofnaturetocausedeath.Thedistinctionisfinebut
realandifoverlooked,mayresultinmiscarriageofjustice.

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page16of26

ThedifferencebetweenClause(b)ofSection299andClause
(3)ofSection300isoneofdegreeofprobabilityofdeath
resultingfromtheintendedbodilyinjury.Toputitmore
broadly,itisthedegreeofprobabilityofdeathwhich
determineswhetheraculpablehomicideisofthegravest,
mediumorthelowestdegree.Theword”likely”inClause

(b)ofSection299conveysthesenseofprobabilityas
distinguishedfromamerepossibility.Thewords”bodily
injury…sufficientintheordinarycourseofnaturetocause
death”meanthatdeathwillbethe”mostprobable”resultof
theinjury,havingregardtotheordinarycourseofnature.

38.ForcasestofallunderClause(3)itisnotnecessarythatthe
offenderintendedtocausedeathsolongasthedeathensuesfrom
theintentionalbodilyinjuryorinjuriessufficienttocausedeathin
theordinarycourseofnature.RajwantSinghv.StateofKerala
AIR1966SC1874isanaptillustrationofthispoint.SectionInVirsa
Singhv.StateofPunjab1958CriLJ818VivianBose,J.speaking
fortheCourt,explainedthemeaningandscopeofClause(3).It
wasobservedthattheprosecutionmustprovethefollowingfacts
beforeitcanbringacaseunderSection300″thirdly”.First,it
mustestablishquiteobjectively,thatabodilyinjuryispresent;
secondly,thenatureoftheinjurymustbeproved.Thesearepurely
objectiveinvestigations.Thirdly,itmustbeprovedthattherewas
anintentiontoinflictthatparticularinjury,thatistosay,thatit
wasnotaccidentalorunintentionalorthatsomeotherkindof
injurywasintended.Oncethesethreeelementsareprovedtobe
present,theenquiryproceedsfurther,andfourthly,itmustbe
provedthattheinjuryofthetypejustdescribedmadeupofthe
threeelementssetoutabovewassufficienttocausedeathinthe
ordinarycourseofnature.Thispartoftheenquiryispurely
objectiveandinferentialandhasnothingtodowiththeintention
oftheoffender.

39.InShivKumarVs.State(NCT)ofDelhi2014(2)JCC1282,it
washeldthatindealingwithException4toSectionsection300in
MaheshBalmikiversusStateofMadhyaPradesh,(2000)1SCC
310,ithasbeenobserved:-

“7.NowException4toSection300IPCisinthefollowing

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page17of26
terms:

Exception4.–Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifitis
committedwithoutpremeditationinasuddenfightintheheat
ofpassionuponasuddenquarrelandwithouttheoffender’s
havingtakenundueadvantageoractedinacruelorunusual
manner.

Explanation.–Itisimmaterialinsuchcaseswhichparty
offerstheprovocationorcommitsthefirstassault.The
requirementsofthisexceptionare:

(a)withoutpremeditationinasuddenfight;

(b)intheheatofpassionuponasuddenquarrel;

(c)theoffenderhasnottakenundueadvantage;and

(d)theoffenderhasnotactedinacruelorunusual
manner.

Wheretheserequirementsaresatisfied,culpablehomicide
wouldnotbemurder.”

40.Intheinstantcasealltherequirementsoftheexceptionare
met.Astowhethertheoffenderhasnotactedinacruelorunusual
manner,wemustconsidertheactionsoftheappellantbeforeand
afterthecrime.Thecrimeitselfmaybesaidtohavebeen
committedsuddenlyintheheatofthemoment,buthisactof
fleeingimmediatelyaftercommittingtheoffenceandlater
informingthepoliceandrequestingthemtosendanambulanceto
thelocationmustbeconsidered.Nothingunusualcanbefoundin
hisactions,therewasnopremeditation,andhecannotbesaidto
havetakenundueadvantage.VideAnkushShivajiGaikwadVs.
StateofMaharashtraAIR2013SC2454:2013CriJ3044.

41.SectionInGhapooYadavandOrs.v.StateofM.P.(2003)3SCC528
andSukbhirSinghv.StateofHaryana(2002)3SCC327,itwas
seenthat:

…Aftertheinjurieswereinflictedtheinjuredhasfallendown,
butthereisnomaterialtoshowthatthereafteranyinjury
wasinflictedwhenhewasinahelplesscondition.The
assaultsweremadeatrandom.Eventheprevious
altercationswereverbalandnotphysical.Itisnotthecaseof

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page18of26
theprosecutionthattheaccusedAppellantshadcome
preparedandarmedforattackingthedeceased….Thisgoes
toshowthatintheheatofpassionuponasuddenquarrel
followedbyafighttheaccusedpersonshadcausedinjuries
onthedeceased,buthadnotactedincruelorunusual
manner.Thatbeingso,Exception4toSection300Indian
PenalCodeisclearlyapplicable…

Thuswemaysaythattheoffenceisnotmurder,butculpable
homicidenotamountingtomurderasunderSectionsection304.

42.Section304oftheIPCisasunder:

304.Punishmentforculpablehomicidenotamountingto
murder.–Whoevercommitsculpablehomicidenotamounting
tomurdershallbepunishedwith1[imprisonmentforlife],or
imprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhichmay
extendtotenyears,andshallalsobeliabletofine,iftheact
bywhichthedeathiscausedisdonewiththeintentionof
causingdeath,orofcausingsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelyto
causedeath,orwithimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionfora
termwhichmayextendtotenyears,orwithfine,orwith
both,iftheactisdonewiththeknowledgethatitislikelyto
causedeath,butwithoutanyintentiontocausedeath,orto
causesuchbodilyinjuryasislikelytocausedeath.
Section304consistsoftwoparts,thefirstdealingwithsecond
degreeculpablehomicideandtheseconddealingwiththird
degreeculpablehomicideashasbeennotedabove.Thedistinction
between304PartIandPartIIhasbeendrawnbytheHon’ble
SupremeCourtinSectionAlisterAnthonyPareirav.Stateof
Maharashtra(2012)2SCC648,inthefollowingwords:
…..ForpunishmentUnderSection304PartI,the
prosecutionmustprove:thedeathofthepersoninquestion;
thatsuchdeathwascausedbytheactoftheaccusedandthat
theaccusedintendedbysuchacttocausedeathorcause
suchbodilyinjuryaswaslikelytocausedeath.Asregards
punishmentforSection304PartII,theprosecutionhasto
provethedeathofthepersoninquestion;thatsuchdeath
wascausedbytheactoftheaccusedandthatheknewthat

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page19of26
suchactofhiswaslikelytocausedeath….

43.SectionInVijayRamkrishanGaikwasV.StateofMaharashtra(2012)
11SCC592,itwasobservedthat….

Theoccurrencethushasthefeaturesofanincidentinwhich
aninjuryisinflictedinasuddenfightwithoutpre-meditation
intheheatofpassionuponasuddenquarrelwithinthe
contemplationofexception4toSection300oftheIndian
PenalCode,whichtakesthecaseoutofthepurviewof
murderasdefinedinthesaidsection.Itistruethatonlyone
injurywascausedtothedeceasedbutthesameisnot
conclusivebyitself,forevenasingleinjurycaninagiven
caseconstitutemurder,havingregardtotheweaponused
andthepartofthebodychosenforinflictingtheinjury.The
legalpositioninthisregardiswellsettledbythedecisionof
thisCourtinBavisettiKameshwaraRaoaliasSectionBabaiv.State
ofAndhraPradesh:2008(15)SCC725:

(Para13)Itisseenthatwhereinthemurdercasethereonly
asingleinjuryis,thereisalwaysatendencytoadvancean
argumentthattheoffencewouldinvariablybecovered
underSection304PanIIIndianPenalCode.Thenatureof
offencewherethereisasingleinjurycouldnotbedecided
merelyonthebasisofthesingleinjuryandthusina
mechanicalfashion.Thenatureoftheoffencewouldcertainly
dependupontheotherattendantcircumstanceswhichwould
helpthecourttofindoutdefinitelyabouttheintentiononthe
partoftheaccused.Suchattendantcircumstancescouldbe
verymany,theybeing(i)whethertheactwaspremeditated;

(ii)thenatureofweaponused;(iii)thenatureofassaulton
theaccused.Thisiscertainlynotanexhaustivelistandevery
casehastonecessarilydependupontheevidenceavailable.
Asregardstheuserofscrewdriver,theLearnedCounsel
urgedthatitwasonlyanaccidentaluseonthespurofthe
momentand,therefore,therecouldbenointentiontoeither
causedeathorcausesuchbodilyinjuryaswouldbe
sufficienttocausedeath.Merelybecausethescrewdriverwas
ausualtoolusedbytheaccusedinhisbusiness,itcouldnot
beasifitsuserwouldbeinnocuous.‖

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page20of26

15.Subsequently,anotherCoordinateBenchofthisCourtinAjayBind
Vs.StateNCTofDelhi;2017SCCOnLineDel0933hasheldthatwhere
onasuddenquarrel,apersonintheheatofthemomentpicksupaweapon
whichishandyandcausesinjuries,oneofwhichprovesfatal,hewouldbe
entitledtothebenefitofthisexceptionprovidedhehasnotactedcruelly.
Therelevantportionofthesaidjudgmentisreproducedhereinbelow:-

―57.Inthisregard,wemayalsorefertothepronouncementofthe
SupremeCourtreportedatSectionPulicherlaNagaraju@Nagaraja
Reddyv.StateofA.P.,(2006)11SCC444whereinitwasheldas
follows:

―29.Therefore,thecourtshouldproceedtodecidethe
pivotalquestionofintention,withcareandcaution,asthat
willdecidewhetherthecasefallsunderSection302or304
PartIor304PartII.Manypettyorinsignificantmatters–
pluckingofafruit,strayingofcattle,quarrelofchildren,
utteranceofarudewordorevenanobjectionableglance,
mayleadtoaltercationsandgroupclashesculminatingin
deaths.Usualmotiveslikerevenge,greed,jealousyor
suspicionmaybetotallyabsentinsuchcases.Theremaybe
nointention.Theremaybenopremeditation.Infact,there
maynotevenbecriminality.Attheotherendofthespectrum,
theremaybecasesofmurderwheretheaccusedattemptsto
avoidthepenaltyformurderbyattemptingtoputforthacase
thattherewasnointentiontocausedeath.Itisforthecourts
toensurethatthecasesofmurderpunishableunderSection
302,arenotconvertedintooffencespunishableunderSection
304PartI/II,orcasesofculpablehomicidenotamountingto
murder,aretreatedasmurderpunishableunderSection302.
Theintentiontocausedeathcanbegatheredgenerallyfrom
acombinationofafeworseveralofthefollowing,among
other,circumstances:(i)natureoftheweaponused;(ii)
whethertheweaponwascarriedbytheaccusedorwas
pickedupfromthespot;(iii)whethertheblowisaimedata
vitalpartofthebody;(iv)theamountofforceemployedin

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page21of26
causinginjury;(v)whethertheactwasinthecourseof
suddenquarrelorsuddenfightorfreeforallfight;(vi)
whethertheincidentoccursbychanceorwhethertherewas
anypremeditation;(vii)whethertherewasanypriorenmity
orwhetherthedeceasedwasastranger;(viii)whetherthere
wasanygraveandsuddenprovocation,andifso,thecause
forsuchprovocation;(ix)whetheritwasintheheatof
passion;(x)whetherthepersoninflictingtheinjuryhastaken
undueadvantageorhasactedinacruelandunusual
manner;(xi)whethertheaccuseddealtasingleblowor
severalblows.Theabovelistofcircumstancesis,ofcourse,
notexhaustiveandtheremaybeseveralotherspecial
circumstanceswithreferencetoindividualcaseswhichmay
throwlightonthequestionofintention.Bethatasitmay.‖

58.Inthisregard,referencemayalsousefullybemadetoa
pronouncementoftheSupremeCourtreportedat(1997)2Crimes
185(Mad.),Samuthram@SamudraRajanv.StateofTamil
Naduwhereinitwasheldasfollows:

―ToinvokeException4toSection300,fourrequirements
mustbesatisfied,namely(i)itwasasuddenfight,(ii)thereis
nopremeditation;(iii)theactwasdoneinaheatofpassion;
and(iv)theassailanthadnottakenanyundueadvantageor
actedinacruelmanner….Thenumberofwoundscaused
duringtheoccurrenceisnotadecisivefactorbutwhatis
importantisthattheoccurrencemusthavebeensuddenand
unpremeditatedandtheoffendermusthaveactedinafitof
anger.Ofcourse,theoffendermustnothavetakenanyundue
advantageoractedinacruelmanner.Where,onasudden
quarrel,apersonintheheatofthemomentpicksupa
weaponwhichishandyandcausesinjuries,oneofwhich
provesfatal,hewouldbeentitledtothebenefitofthis
Exceptionprovidedhehasnotactedcruelly;‖

(Emphasissupplied)

59.Theevidenceextractedaboveshowsthattheweaponswerenot
carriedbytheappellantsbutwerepickedupfromthespot.The
actswereinthecourseofasuddenquarrelandtheincident

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page22of26
occurredbychancewithoutanypre-meditation.Thereisno
evidenceatallofpreviousenmity.Onthecontrary,thedeceased
wasastrangertotheappellantswhowasvisitingthematrimonial
homeofhisdaughterinthevicinitywherethequarreltookplace.
Theincidentwasaresultoftheappellantsgettingprovokedandin
aheatofpassion.

60.Infact,theappellantswerequarrellingamongstthemselves
anditwasthedeceasedandhisfamilywhocameoutoftheirhome
tointerveneresultinginthequarrel.

xxxxxxxxx

63.Thustempersoftheappellantswerealreadyrunninghigh.The
evidenceofRampal(PW-6)isthattheappellantswerequarrelling
undertheinfluenceofalcohol.Theinterventionbythedeceasedto
loudlycommandtheappellantstokeepquietresultedinthe
attentionandilltemperbecomingdirectedtowardsthedeceased.
ItwasinthisatmosphereofheightenedtemperthatAjayBind
pickedupthehammerlyingatthespot.Theothertwopickedup
thedandaandthesarialyingthereitself.Noneoftheseare
dangerousweaponsbutordinarytoolslyingonthespotwhich
cametobeusedasweapons.Clearly,theevidenceestablishesthat
therewasnopre-meditationandthattheviolencewasaresultof
suddenprovocationinanongoingfightbetweentheappellants
fromastranger(thedeceased).

xxxxxxxxx

67.Therefore,theconvictionoftheappellantsvideimpugned
judgmentdated22ndMarch,2016andsentencevideimpugned
orderdated29thMarch,2016bytheld.AdditionalSessionsJudge-
05(West),TisHazariCourts,DelhiinSessionsCaseNo.44/15
arisingoutofFIRNo.291/2011registeredatP.S.NihalVihar
underSections323/Section302/Section34/Section174AoftheIPCismodifiedtoone
underSection304PartIIoftheIndianPenalCode,1860.‖

16.ThisCourthasgonethroughtheevidenceonrecordandisoftheview
thatappellantistheperpetratorwhohadcausedstabinjuryresultingindeath

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page23of26
ofRajKumar.However,therewasnointentiontocausedeathastherewas
asuddenandinstantaneousaltercationbetweentheappellantanddeceased,
whiletheywereconsumingliquor,ontheissueofillicitrelationship
betweenthedeceasedandwifeofappellantwhichledtorisingoftemper
andintheheatofthemomenttheappellantinflictedasingleblowuponthe
deceasedinthelowerabdomenwithasmallvegetableknifeandalsotohis
wifeintheabdomen.

17.Lackofintentiononthepartoftheappellantisapparentfromthe
factsthattheknifewasnotprocuredbytheappellantpriortothealtercation
andtheappellanthadinflictedasingleblowonthebodyofthedeceasedand
hiswifeunderintoxication.

18.ThisCourtisoftheopinionthatSectionKikarSinghvs.StateofRajasthan
(supra)isclearlydistinguishableonfactsinasmuchastheappellantherein
didnotuseadeadlyweaponandappellantdidnotactcruellyanddidnot
takeundueadvantage.Theappellantinthepresentcasegaveoneblowonly,
unlikeinSectionKikarSinghvs.StateofRajasthan(supra)wheretheaccusedgave
threeblowsandthattoowhenthedeceasedhadfallenontheground.

19.However,thisCourtisoftheviewthattheappellanthadknowledge
thataknifeinjuryascausedbyhimwassufficienttocausedeathinthe
normalcourseofevents.Dr.ManojNagpal,DDUHospitalwhodeposedas
PW-10hasconfirmedthesaidfact.TherelevantportionofPW-10’s
depositionisreproducedhereinbelow:-

―On24.9.2001,Ihadconductedthepostmortemonthedeadbody
ofRajkumarS/oSoniLalage30years.OnexaminationIfound
thefollowinginjuriesonthedeadbodyofRajkumar:

1.Penetratingwoundpresentontheabdomen2Cm.lateraltoleft
sideofumbilicusand13Cm.aboveCubicsynphysismeasuring

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page24of26
1.5×2.5Cm.Cleancutwelldefinedboardersandspindleshape.
Theinjuriescrossedtheabdominalmusclesandpiercingthesmall
intestinesattwoplacesthroughandthrough.Inthecourseof
penetrationtheinjuryalsopiercedthemesentry.

2.Bruise2x.8Cm.15Cm.totherightofumbilicusand6Cm.
belowcoastalmargin.

Injuryno.1issufficienttocausedeathinnormalcourseof
events…..‖
(emphasissupplied)

20.Keepinginviewtheaforesaidmandateoflawaswellasthefactual
findings,thisCourtisoftheviewthatappellantisentitledtobenefitof
Exception4toSection300IPCandconsequently,isconvictedunder
Section304Part-IIIPC.

21.ThisCourtisoftheviewthatendsofjusticewouldbemetifthe
sentenceoftheappellantisreducedtosevenyearsrigorousimprisonment.
Accordingly,appellantissentencedtosevenyearsrigorousimprisonment
underSection304Part-IIIPC.Sentenceoffinestandsunaltered.

22.Itisfurtherobservedthatasperevidenceonrecordappellanthas
givenstabinjurytohiswifeandhisconvictionunderSection307IPCis
upheld.However,lookingintothefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,the
sentenceunderSection307IPCisalsoreducedtosevenyearsrigorous
imprisonment,whilemaintainingthefineimposedbythelearnedTrial
Court.

23.Atthisstage,learnedcounselfortheappellantpraysforsometimeto
surrenderbeforetheTrialCourt.Theappellantispermittedtosurrender
beforetheTrialCourtwithinfourweekstoserveouttheremainderofhis
sentence.BoththesentencesshallrunconcurrentlyandbenefitofSection
428Cr.P.C.standsgranted.

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page25of26

24.Withtheaforesaiddirections,presentappealstandsdisposedof.Copy
ofjudgmentbesenttoTrialCourtforcompliance.Copyofjudgmentbe
alsogivendastitotheappellant.

MANMOHAN,J

SANGITADHINGRASEHGAL,J
MAY09,2019
KA

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page26of26