Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, convicting the appellants (original accused Nos. 1 and 2) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. The appellants were the son and wife of the deceased. The prosecution case was that the deceased was addicted to liquor and often quarreled with the appellants, demanding transfer of agricultural land. On 28 July 2012, the deceased came home inebriated and abused the accused. The second appellant, wife, told the first appellant to finish the deceased to get rid of the nuisance. She then hit the deceased on the forehead with a kitchen iron rod, and when the deceased fell, the first appellant struck him on the back of the head with an axe. The incident was witnessed by the 14-year-old daughter of the deceased (PW4), who informed her uncle (PW3), leading to the lodging of an FIR. The trial court convicted the appellants for murder. In appeal, the appellants contended that there was no intention to kill, the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation, and the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, warranting conviction only for culpable homicide. They also challenged the credibility of the child witness. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found the testimony of PW4 credible and corroborated by medical evidence. The court noted that the quarrel was sudden, provoked by the deceased's abuses, and there was no prior planning. The assault was not premeditated, and the accused did not act in a cruel or unusual manner. Applying the principles relating to Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the court held that the case was one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. Common intention under Section 34 was established as both accused participated in the assault. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302/34 was set aside, and the appellants were convicted under Section 304 Part I/34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine. The period already undergone was to be set off.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Culpable Homicide - Distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 Part I - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 304 Part I - The court analysed whether the accused had intention to cause death or only knowledge that the act was likely to cause death. Held that when the incident occurs in a sudden fight without premeditation upon grave and sudden provocation, the offence falls under Section 304 Part I and not Section 302. (Paras 18-22) B) Criminal Law - Sudden Fight - Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 300 Exception 4 - The court found that the quarrel erupted suddenly when the deceased abused the accused, there was no premeditation, and the accused acted upon grave and sudden provocation. Held that Exception 4 applies, reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Paras 18-21) C) Evidence - Child Witness - Competency and Credibility - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 118 - The court examined the testimony of PW4, a 14-year-old eye witness, and found it consistent and corroborated by medical evidence despite minor contradictions. Held that a child witness is competent to testify if the court is satisfied about understanding, and reliable evidence can form the basis of conviction. (Paras 9-12) D) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Applicability of Section 34 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - The court held that both accused shared common intention to cause bodily injury as they acted in concert when one hit with an iron rod and the other with an axe immediately thereafter. Held that Section 34 is attracted. (Paras 15-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code is proper, or whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside. Instead, appellants convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1,000 each, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. Period of imprisonment already undergone to be set off.
Law Points
- Distinction between Section 302 and Section 304 Part I IPC
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight without premeditation)
- evaluation of child witness testimony
- common intention under Section 34 IPC
- minor inconsistencies in evidence not fatal.
