State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P v. For

Judgment

1. This appeal is preferred by Sharvan Kumar against the judgment dated 08.07.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No.200/2018, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC. Vide order of even date, the appellant was ordered to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment.

2. The facts as set up by the prosecution are that Vinod Kumar (complainant) reported the matter to the police on 13.08.2018 stating that at about 10 A.M. his father Sitaram (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) along-with the appellant were sitting near weighing bridge, Raiwasa. During heated exchange of words [2025:RJ-JP:30315-DB] (2 of 11) [CRLAD-195/2020] the appellant broke a bottle, stabbed with it in the neck of the deceased and the injuries were inflicted on the head, hand and stomach. The deceased succumbed to injuries in the hospital. An

FIR No.189/2018 was registered at Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar u/s 302 IPC. The charge-sheet was filed and the charge was framed u/s 302 IPC. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and exhibited thirty two documents to prove the case. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., it was stated to be a case of false implication. In defence two documents were exhibited. The trial court relying upon statement of the eye witnesses, medical evidence and appreciating the evidence adduced convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC.

3. The only issue raised and pressed by counsel for the appellant is that it was not a case of murder and falls within the ambit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.

4. It is argued that there was no premeditation to kill and the appellant was not armed. Reliance is placed upon statement of PW-4 Dr. H.S. Fagediya, wherein it was stated that only one injury on the neck proved fatal due to excessive bleeding as the internal jugular vein was ruptured. Submission is that as per the custody certificate dated 12/07/2025 appellant is in custody for nine years including remission.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that injuries were inflicted by the appellant to the deceased with an intention to kill.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. [2025:RJ-JP:30315-DB] (3 of 11) [CRLAD-195/2020]

7. PW-2 Dudha Ram and PW-3 Mohd. Hussain stated to be eye witnesses were declared hostile.

8. PW-6 Jagdish an eye witness, supported the case of the prosecution by narrating the entire incident. As per the statement, the appellant and the deceased were having drinks near the shop of Balai welding. The son of the appellant had died two to three days back and body was recovered from the hills. The appellant said to the deceased that due to his nephew, he lost his son. The issue flared up resulting in exchange of heated words during which the appellant broke a beer bottle and inflicted injuries. The injury inflicted on neck resulted in rupture of internal jugular vein and the deceased died due to excessive blood loss.

9. Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC is reproduced below:- “Exception 4 – Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation - It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.”

10. There are four pre-requisites for invoking Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC:- (i) Sudden fight; (ii) No premeditation; (iii) The accused had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and lastly (iv) fight should be with the deceased. [2025:RJ-JP:30315-DB] (4 of 11) [CRLAD-195/2020]

11. In the case in hand, the appellant had no pre-meditation. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was armed or there was enmity between the appellant and the deceased. The comment on a sensitive subject of death of son of the appellant flared tempers and led to a sudden fight in which the appellant inflicted injuries to the deceased.

12. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant and the deceased were consuming alcohol at the time of the incident. The appellant was not armed and the injuries were inflicted using a broken beer bottle, which was picked from site during the altercation. The fight was between the appellant and the deceased. The three ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC are satisfied. The issue needing consideration is whether the appellant acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

13. There cannot be a straight jacket formula for determining the cruelty and depends upon facts of each case. In this case, sudden provocation was triggered by an argument regarding the cause of death of son of the appellant and the tempers were high. Appellant having lost self restrain on an emotional issue, before regaining self control inflicted injuries to deceased. There is no motive attributed for the incident and nothing is on record to show that there was enmity between the appellant and the deceased. The injuries were caused by a broken beer bottle taken from the spot. The medical evidence is that rupture of internal jugular vein, if treated within fifteen to thirty minutes may not have prove fatal. Except for the injury on the neck that led to rupture of the jugular [2025:RJ-JP:30315-DB] (5 of 11) [CRLAD-195/2020] vein, no other injuries have been proved to have contributed to the death of the deceased.

14. The Supreme Court in the case of Budhi Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2012) 13 SCC 663 has held:- “18. The doctrine of sudden and grave provocation is incapable of rigid construction leading to or stating any principle of universal application. This will always have to depend on the facts of a given case. While applying this principle, the primary obligation of the Court is to examine from the point of view of a person of reasonable prudence if there was such grave and sudden provocation so as to reasonably conclude that it was possible to commit the offence of culpable homicide, and as per the facts, was not a culpable homicide amounting to murder. An offence resulting from grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that a person placed in such circumstances could lose self-control but only temporarily and that too, in proximity to the time of provocation. The provocation could be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of injury.

19. Another test that is applied more often than not is that the behaviour of the assailant was that of a reasonable person. A fine distinction has to be kept in mind between sudden and grave provocation resulting in sudden and temporary loss of self-control and the one which inspires an actual intention to kill. Such act should have been done during the continuation of the state of mind and the [2025:RJ-JP:30315-DB] (6 of 11) [CRLAD-195/2020] time for such person to kill and reasons to regain the dominion over the mind. Once there is pre-meditated act with the intention to kill, it will obviously fall beyond the scope of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. When we consider the facts of the case in hand, it is obvious and, as already noticed, tobru (small axe) is a commonly available weapon in the houses in the hills which is used for cutting and collecting the firewood. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the cooking gas was not available in interior parts of hills 12 years back. The provocation was sudden and apparently of grave nature. It is the case of prosecution itself that the deceased was abusing and even assaulting his father and father had shouted for help and called the accused who was already in the house. The deceased was in a drunken state. As it appears that tobru was easily available which the accused picked up and went straight out and assaulted his brother, the deceased. The injuries proved fatal. There is no prosecution evidence to show that there was animosity between the deceased and the accused or there was any other motive much less a pre-meditation to kill the accused. They had been living in the same house for years. No unpleasant incident or physical fight was stated to have been reported to the Police in the past. If one examines the cumulative effect of the prosecution evidence while keeping the relationship of the parties in mind and the factum of the deceased being in a drunken state abusing and assaulting his father, it can reasonably be inferred that there was sudden [2025:RJ-JP:30315-DB] (7 of 11) [CRLAD-195/2020] and grave provocation to the accused. In our society, a son normally would not tolerate that his father is insulted, much less assaulted. Of course, the weapon used in crime was used with the knowledge that it could cause a grievous hurt endangering the life or even cause death of the deceased but, as indicated supra, such weapon is most easily available in houses.”

15. The decision in Budhi Singh (supra) was considered in the case Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 5 SCC 796, wherein it was held that the High Court erred in not bringing the case within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC on the ground of injuries having been inflicted to six persons and a death being caused. Relevant para of the judgment is quoted below:- “18. Now, we have to consider the facts of this case on the touchstone of Section 300 Exception 4 in order to find out whether the case falls under the same or not. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused strenuously contended before this Court that the High Court recorded a categorical finding that “an inescapable conclusion that can be drawn is that it was a case of sudden fight where the attack was without premeditation”. He further contended that despite holding so, the High Court erroneously convicted the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC instead of Section 304 Part II on the ground that the appellant- accused had acted in cruel manner and had caused injuries to six persons and a death.” [2025:RJ-JP:30315-DB] (8 of 11) [CRLAD-195/2020]

16. The Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh reported in (1989) 2 SCC 217 set aside the order of the High Court, wherein the benefit of Section 304 IPC Part-I was denied for accused having inflicted three injuries and thereby acted in a cruel manner. Relevant part of the judgment is quoted below:- “7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it 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 important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.”

17. The Supreme Court in the case of Rahul @ Lambu Shankarprasadsing Rajput Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2020) 4 RCR (Criminal) 108 considering that the appellant and the deceased were having drinks together and without any prior preparation the offence occurred and during that time [2025:RJ-JP:30315-DB] (9 of 11) [CRLAD-195/2020] altercation took place resulting in attack by the accused with a knife causing around eight injuries to the deceased. The case was held to be covered under Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. The relevant paras are quoted below:- “8. According to the accused-appellant, Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code must come to the aid of the accused-appellant to hold that it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. That view could be taken on the basis of the finding recorded by the Trial Court and which finding has not been disturbed by the High Court. To wit, that the accused-appellant and the deceased came separately at the place where the offence occurred, for having drinks without any prior preparation and they sat together. During that time, some altercation took place resulting in the attack by the accused-appellant with a knife, causing around eight injuries to the deceased.

9. In the facts of the present case, after perusing the evidence on record including the findings recorded by the Trial Court, we have no hesitation in accepting the argument of the appellant-accused that this case would be covered by Exception (4) to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, as the offence was not premeditated and had happened on the spur of the moment, in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel.

10. The next question is whether the case would be covered by Section 304 Part-I or 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code? Considering the fact situation of the present case and the exposition in paragraph 13 in the case of Surain Singh v. The State of Punjab reported in (2017) 5 SCC 796, we have no hesitation in holding that the case would be [2025:RJ-JP:30315-DB] (10 of 11) [CRLAD-195/2020] covered by Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.

11. It is not in dispute that the accused-appellant has already undergone seven years and around seven months of the sentence period. Taking into account the remission period, the accused-appellant must have completed more than nine years of the sentence period which, in our opinion, is just and proper. In other words, the accused-appellant deserves to be released on the basis of the sentence period already undergone by him for the stated offence. We order accordingly.”

18. Taking into consideration that:- (a) both appellant and deceased were sitting together and consuming alcohol; (b) there was heated conversation with regard to cause of death of son of the appellant; (c) appellant was unarmed and there was no premeditation; (d) the Beer bottle was picked from spot and injuries were inflicted to the deceased; (e) except injury causing rapture of Jugular vein no other injury was proved to have contributed to death of the deceased; and (f) the injuries were inflicted in heat of moment after appellant lost self control on a sensitive issue to which a reasonable person would react; We hold that the case fall within ambit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC.

19. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent that appellant is convicted u/s 304 Part-I IPC and the appellant is ordered to sentence to the period already undergone. [2025:RJ-JP:30315-DB] (11 of 11) [CRLAD-195/2020]

20. The appeal is partly allowed. Appellant who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

21. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 BNSS, appellant Sharvan Kumar S/o Shri Chhotudas is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and surety bond of the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, appellant Sharvan Kumar on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Chandan/45 Reportable: Yes