State of U.P v. Counsel for

Srivastava Court No. - 46 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

2. The present criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2023 passed in Session Trial No. 33 of 2018 (State vs. Premlal), arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2017, under Sections- 302, 323, 504 IPC, P.S.- Markundi, District- Chitrakoot.

3. The prosecution case is that the informant, Buddhilal, submitted a written report at Police Station- Markundi, District- Chitrakoot, stating that his maternal uncle (mama) Mukundilal, son of Chandu, resident of Bandha Bheetar, Police Station- Markundi, District- Chitrakoot, aged about 48 years, on 31.12.2017 at about 10:00 p.m., was sitting in his house. At that time, one person from his village, namely, Premlal, son of Kunbudiya, came there, holding a stick in his hand and started abusing him in filthy language in front of his house. Hearing the commotion, the informant's maternal uncle (mama) came out of his house and told him to stop using abusive language. Thereafter, Premlal, with an intention to cause death, assaulted him several times with the stick. As a result, he fell down on the ground and started crying. On hearing his cries, nearby people rushed to save him, but by that time, Premlal had fled from the spot. They lifted the maternal uncle of informant and it appeared that he had died. Thereafter, he was immediately taken to Manikpur Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. At the time of the incident, the informant's cousin, Umesh, was also present. Thereafter, on the basis of an application, a request was made before police station for registration of the case and taking 2 CRLA No. 11576 of 2023 legal action against the accused.

4. The trial court framed charges against the accused, Premlal, under Sections- 302, 323 and 504 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused denied the allegations leveled against him and sought trial before the Court.

5. The witness on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.-1, Budhialal (complainant), stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident took place on 31.12.2017 at around 10:00 p.m. He was sitting at his house shop, with the light of an electric bulb on. At that time, Premlal of his village came in front of his house, holding a stick in his hand, and started abusing him. He then went about ten meters away to his maternal uncle's house and started abusing his uncle, Mukundilal and his son Umesh, with the same words. Mukundilal came out of the house and forbade Premlal from abusing. Thereupon, Premlal, with intent to kill, struck a stick upon the back part of his neck. He also struck on the head of Mukundilal near the ears on both sides with the stick. Premlal struck approximately 4-5 blows with intent to kill and then quickly fled. Mukundilal fell on the spot. On Mukundilal's cries for help, people came, and when they tried to catch Premlal, he waived the stick threatening to attack and fled from the spot. This incident was seen by him with his own eyes and besides him, it was also seen by Umesh and his mother, Makki and Umesh's wife, Shakuntala. When the people lifted Mukundilal, it was realized that Mukundilal had died on the spot. Mukundilal was taken to Manikpur Hospital where the doctor declared him dead. The application given at police station was proved as Ex-1. Detailed cross-examination was conducted by the defence.

6. P.W.-2, Bhaiyaram, in his examination-in-chief, stated that the incident occurred approximately two years ago. Premlal had struck Mukundilal with a stick, resulting in the death of Mukundilal. On the same night, information regarding this incident was given at the police station. The police came to the village, and around 10:00 a.m the next morning, the police arrived again and the inquest report of the body was prepared. The accused was also present at the scene. The witness identified the inquest report document, bearing number 15K/2, bearing his signature and thumb impression, thus marking it as Exhibit K-2. The witness was cross-examined on behalf of defence. 3 CRLA No. 11576 of 2023

7. P.W.-7, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, in his examination-in-chief stated that on the date 01.01.2018, he was working as a Medical Officer at the Community Health Center, Manikpur, and that on the said date the injured, Umesh, aged 26 years, underwent medical examination. It was reported that the following injuries were found on the body of injured, Umesh, quoted hereinbelow:- (i) A scratch measuring 1.00 cm x 5.00 cm on the right side of the head near the ear towards the last part of the scalp, which was of black colour. (ii) A lacerated wound measuring 0.5 cm x 0.30 cm on the skin of the upper lip on the medial aspect, which was of white colour.

8. P.W.-11, Dr. Shammi Kapoor, in his examination-in-chief, stated that on 01.01.2018 he was posted at District Hospital, Chitrakoot, and on the said date he conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Mukundilal, wherein he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:- (i) There was a bluish contusion on the right side of the face measuring 6 cm × 2 cm, situated 2 cm below the right eyelid. (ii) There was a lacerated wound on the right cheek measuring 1 cm × ½ cm, situated ½ cm below the right eyelid. (iii) A bluish contusion was present on the ribs below the right side of the chest, measuring 4 cm × 4 cm, situated 3 cm below the right nipple.

9. Upon perusal of the medical evidence, it is revealed that the deceased sustained a fracture below the right eye, extending from the maxilla to the temporal and parietal bones of the skull. A clot of blood was found on the cerebral surface, accompanied by cerebral edema, the brain weighing approximately 1,500 grams. Fractures were also observed on the maxillary and zygomatic bones. Furthermore, the sixth and seventh ribs of the chest were fractured, resulting in a laceration to the liver beneath, causing profuse haemorrhage and the presence of blood within the abdominal cavity. Both ventricles of the heart were found empty, and approximately 250 ml of partially digested food was present in the stomach. The liver, weighing 1,500 grams, was ruptured beneath the fractured ribs. 4 CRLA No. 11576 of 2023

10. The medical witness opined that death had occurred within approximately one day prior to examination and attributed the cause of death primarily to massive haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries, with the immediate cause being haemorrhagic shock. The witness further deposed that the post-mortem report was prepared by him in his own handwriting and bears his signature, and the same has been marked and proved as Exhibit K-14. The witness was also subjected to cross-examination by the defence.

11. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the IPC. The accused, in his statement, denied the prosecution case and alleged that the witnesses had deposed falsely. He further contended that the case had been instituted out of personal animosity and asserted his innocence, claiming to have been falsely implicated. Though he expressed his intention to lead evidence in his defence, no evidence was, in fact, adduced on his behalf. The fact that the accused did not produce any evidence in defence has been duly noted in the case record.

12. After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that as per the prosecution case itself on the fateful day the deceased, Mukundilal, aged about 48 years was sitting in his house when the appellant passed in front of his house uttering abuses and having a log (lathi) in his hand. The deceased came outside his house and tried to prevent the appellant from making filthy abuses and then the appellant is alleged to have assaulted from wooden log in his head. The deceased made an alarm and fell on the spot. The deceased was declared dead in the hospital. The son of the deceased, Umesh, was also beaten by the appellant.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the son of deceased suffered only minor injuries while the deceased suffered one fatal blow on his right side of the face which resulted in fracture of maxilla which extended to temporal and parietal bone. The second injury was on cheek and not fatal. The third injury on the chest resulted in fracture of 6th and 7th rib which punctured the liver. It has also come in evidence of P.W.-3 that the appellant had consumed liquor at the time when he committed the alleged incident.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submits that it is clear from the evidence on record that the occurrence had taken place out of a 5 CRLA No. 11576 of 2023 sudden and minor provocation of stopping the appellant from uttering abuses in front of house of deceased.

15. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions and has submitted that it is a case of brutal murder and not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

16. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the present case is covered under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, the death of the deceased was caused without premeditation; it arose out of a sudden quarrel and in the offence was committed in the heat of passion. The appellant did not act in a cruel or unusual manner when he was restrained by the deceased from hurling abuses in front of the house of deceased. It further appears that the appellant, being under the influence of liquor, in the heat of the moment, inflicted two fatal blows upon the deceased with a wooden log which he was already holding in his hand.

17. The question that now arises for consideration before us is as to under which part of Section 304 IPC the appellant is liable to be punished. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444, wherein the Court, while determining whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC, observed as under: "29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 II. Many petty or insignificant matters plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance or a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302 are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether he weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up 6 CRLA No. 11576 of 2023 from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may."

18. After considering the material available on record, this Court finds that the appellant has committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Accordingly, the appellant is held liable to be convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court under Section 302 IPC, sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life, deserved to be modified.

19. Accordingly conviction of the appellant is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304, Part II IPC. The appellant has been in custody since 05.01.2018. In view thereof, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. The appellant is, however, directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be paid to the informant as compensation.

20. It is further directed that in the event of failure to deposit the said fine, and considering that the conviction and sentences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC are not interfered with, the appellant shall undergo an additional period of one year's rigorous imprisonment.

21. The criminal appeal is partly allowed.

22. Let the trial court record be returned and this judgment be also notified to the trial court within ten days. October 15, 2025 Rohit (Prashant Mishra-I,J.) (Siddharth,J.) ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Srivastava Court No. - 46 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.

1. Heard Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

2. The present criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2023 passed in Session Trial No. 33 of 2018 (State vs. Premlal), arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2017, under Sections- 302, 323, 504 IPC, P.S.- Markundi, District- Chitrakoot.

3. The prosecution case is that the informant, Buddhilal, submitted a written report at Police Station- Markundi, District- Chitrakoot, stating that his maternal uncle (mama) Mukundilal, son of Chandu, resident of Bandha Bheetar, Police Station- Markundi, District- Chitrakoot, aged about 48 years, on 31.12.2017 at about 10:00 p.m., was sitting in his house. At that time, one person from his village, namely, Premlal, son of Kunbudiya, came there, holding a stick in his hand and started abusing him in filthy language in front of his house. Hearing the commotion, the informant's maternal uncle (mama) came out of his house and told him to stop using abusive language. Thereafter, Premlal, with an intention to cause death, assaulted him several times with the stick. As a result, he fell down on the ground and started crying. On hearing his cries, nearby people rushed to save him, but by that time, Premlal had fled from the spot. They lifted the maternal uncle of informant and it appeared that he had died. Thereafter, he was immediately taken to Manikpur Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. At the time of the incident, the informant's cousin, Umesh, was also present. Thereafter, on the basis of an application, a request was made before police station for registration of the case and taking 2 CRLA No. 11576 of 2023 legal action against the accused.

4. The trial court framed charges against the accused, Premlal, under Sections- 302, 323 and 504 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused denied the allegations leveled against him and sought trial before the Court.

5. The witness on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.-1, Budhialal (complainant), stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident took place on 31.12.2017 at around 10:00 p.m. He was sitting at his house shop, with the light of an electric bulb on. At that time, Premlal of his village came in front of his house, holding a stick in his hand, and started abusing him. He then went about ten meters away to his maternal uncle's house and started abusing his uncle, Mukundilal and his son Umesh, with the same words. Mukundilal came out of the house and forbade Premlal from abusing. Thereupon, Premlal, with intent to kill, struck a stick upon the back part of his neck. He also struck on the head of Mukundilal near the ears on both sides with the stick. Premlal struck approximately 4-5 blows with intent to kill and then quickly fled. Mukundilal fell on the spot. On Mukundilal's cries for help, people came, and when they tried to catch Premlal, he waived the stick threatening to attack and fled from the spot. This incident was seen by him with his own eyes and besides him, it was also seen by Umesh and his mother, Makki and Umesh's wife, Shakuntala. When the people lifted Mukundilal, it was realized that Mukundilal had died on the spot. Mukundilal was taken to Manikpur Hospital where the doctor declared him dead. The application given at police station was proved as Ex-1. Detailed cross-examination was conducted by the defence.

6. P.W.-2, Bhaiyaram, in his examination-in-chief, stated that the incident occurred approximately two years ago. Premlal had struck Mukundilal with a stick, resulting in the death of Mukundilal. On the same night, information regarding this incident was given at the police station. The police came to the village, and around 10:00 a.m the next morning, the police arrived again and the inquest report of the body was prepared. The accused was also present at the scene. The witness identified the inquest report document, bearing number 15K/2, bearing his signature and thumb impression, thus marking it as Exhibit K-2. The witness was cross-examined on behalf of defence. 3 CRLA No. 11576 of 2023

7. P.W.-7, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, in his examination-in-chief stated that on the date 01.01.2018, he was working as a Medical Officer at the Community Health Center, Manikpur, and that on the said date the injured, Umesh, aged 26 years, underwent medical examination. It was reported that the following injuries were found on the body of injured, Umesh, quoted hereinbelow:- (i) A scratch measuring 1.00 cm x 5.00 cm on the right side of the head near the ear towards the last part of the scalp, which was of black colour. (ii) A lacerated wound measuring 0.5 cm x 0.30 cm on the skin of the upper lip on the medial aspect, which was of white colour.

8. P.W.-11, Dr. Shammi Kapoor, in his examination-in-chief, stated that on 01.01.2018 he was posted at District Hospital, Chitrakoot, and on the said date he conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Mukundilal, wherein he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:- (i) There was a bluish contusion on the right side of the face measuring 6 cm × 2 cm, situated 2 cm below the right eyelid. (ii) There was a lacerated wound on the right cheek measuring 1 cm × ½ cm, situated ½ cm below the right eyelid. (iii) A bluish contusion was present on the ribs below the right side of the chest, measuring 4 cm × 4 cm, situated 3 cm below the right nipple.

9. Upon perusal of the medical evidence, it is revealed that the deceased sustained a fracture below the right eye, extending from the maxilla to the temporal and parietal bones of the skull. A clot of blood was found on the cerebral surface, accompanied by cerebral edema, the brain weighing approximately 1,500 grams. Fractures were also observed on the maxillary and zygomatic bones. Furthermore, the sixth and seventh ribs of the chest were fractured, resulting in a laceration to the liver beneath, causing profuse haemorrhage and the presence of blood within the abdominal cavity. Both ventricles of the heart were found empty, and approximately 250 ml of partially digested food was present in the stomach. The liver, weighing 1,500 grams, was ruptured beneath the fractured ribs. 4 CRLA No. 11576 of 2023

10. The medical witness opined that death had occurred within approximately one day prior to examination and attributed the cause of death primarily to massive haemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries, with the immediate cause being haemorrhagic shock. The witness further deposed that the post-mortem report was prepared by him in his own handwriting and bears his signature, and the same has been marked and proved as Exhibit K-14. The witness was also subjected to cross-examination by the defence.

11. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the IPC. The accused, in his statement, denied the prosecution case and alleged that the witnesses had deposed falsely. He further contended that the case had been instituted out of personal animosity and asserted his innocence, claiming to have been falsely implicated. Though he expressed his intention to lead evidence in his defence, no evidence was, in fact, adduced on his behalf. The fact that the accused did not produce any evidence in defence has been duly noted in the case record.

12. After hearing the rival contentions, this court finds that as per the prosecution case itself on the fateful day the deceased, Mukundilal, aged about 48 years was sitting in his house when the appellant passed in front of his house uttering abuses and having a log (lathi) in his hand. The deceased came outside his house and tried to prevent the appellant from making filthy abuses and then the appellant is alleged to have assaulted from wooden log in his head. The deceased made an alarm and fell on the spot. The deceased was declared dead in the hospital. The son of the deceased, Umesh, was also beaten by the appellant.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the son of deceased suffered only minor injuries while the deceased suffered one fatal blow on his right side of the face which resulted in fracture of maxilla which extended to temporal and parietal bone. The second injury was on cheek and not fatal. The third injury on the chest resulted in fracture of 6th and 7th rib which punctured the liver. It has also come in evidence of P.W.-3 that the appellant had consumed liquor at the time when he committed the alleged incident.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submits that it is clear from the evidence on record that the occurrence had taken place out of a 5 CRLA No. 11576 of 2023 sudden and minor provocation of stopping the appellant from uttering abuses in front of house of deceased.

15. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions and has submitted that it is a case of brutal murder and not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

16. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find that the present case is covered under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, the death of the deceased was caused without premeditation; it arose out of a sudden quarrel and in the offence was committed in the heat of passion. The appellant did not act in a cruel or unusual manner when he was restrained by the deceased from hurling abuses in front of the house of deceased. It further appears that the appellant, being under the influence of liquor, in the heat of the moment, inflicted two fatal blows upon the deceased with a wooden log which he was already holding in his hand.

17. The question that now arises for consideration before us is as to under which part of Section 304 IPC the appellant is liable to be punished. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 11 SCC 444, wherein the Court, while determining whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC, observed as under: "29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 II. Many petty or insignificant matters plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance or a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302 are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether he weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up 6 CRLA No. 11576 of 2023 from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may."

18. After considering the material available on record, this Court finds that the appellant has committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Accordingly, the appellant is held liable to be convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court under Section 302 IPC, sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life, deserved to be modified.

19. Accordingly conviction of the appellant is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304, Part II IPC. The appellant has been in custody since 05.01.2018. In view thereof, his sentence is reduced to the period already undergone in custody. The appellant is, however, directed to deposit a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be paid to the informant as compensation.

20. It is further directed that in the event of failure to deposit the said fine, and considering that the conviction and sentences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC are not interfered with, the appellant shall undergo an additional period of one year's rigorous imprisonment.

21. The criminal appeal is partly allowed.

22. Let the trial court record be returned and this judgment be also notified to the trial court within ten days. October 15, 2025 Rohit (Prashant Mishra-I,J.) (Siddharth,J.) ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad