Cause Of Quarrel & Number Of Wounds Irrelevant While Considering Whether Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC Can Be Invoked: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that to fall within Exception No. 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, the cause of the quarrel or provocation and the number of wounds are irrelevant.
The Bench altered the conviction of the appellant who was previously sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 of the IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
A Division Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice N.S.Shekhawat observed, “It is apparent that by causing an injury with such a knife, the present appellant had no intention to commit the murder of Mohinder, deceased. However, this knife was used with such a force that the person had met his death; knowledge has to be imputed to the appellant and in that situation, the present case would fall in Part II of Section 304 IPC…In the present case also, the appellant had admittedly not acted in a cruel or unusual manner and it was a fight, which had taken place at the spur of the moment.”
Advocate Sumit Sharma represented the appellant and DAG Munish Sharma appeared for the respondent.
During the trial, the prosecution presented a detailed account of the incident based on statements from eyewitnesses and medical reports. According to the prosecution, the deceased was attacked near his village’s wheat fields following a scuffle instigated by the appellant, alongside other accused who were later acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
In the appeal, the appellant argued that the incident resulted from a sudden altercation over a mobile phone. The appellant maintained that he and the deceased were close friends and had no prior enmity, asserting that the act was not premeditated but occurred in the heat of the moment as they were intoxicated. The appellant further contended that the knife used was a domestic one, found at the scene, which was used in self-defence.
The Bench explained that in order to establish whether an offence would fall in the category of murder or culpable homicide, “the cause of quarrel is not relevant nor it is relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor, but what is more important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and un-premeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger.”
Apart from an incident being the result of a sudden quarrel without pre-meditation, the law requires that the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner to be able to claim the benefit of Exception No.4 to Section 300 IPC.
Consequently, the Court modified Mandeep's conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to the period already undergone.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Mandeep v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:071729)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Sumit Sharma
Respondent: DAG Munish Sharma
