The accused and the deceased had a dispute on agricultural land before the incident. The cause of the dispute was the raising of the wall which infuriated the appellant on the refusal of the deceased to raise the wall.The accused hit the deceased with a stone on his head and as a result, the deceased died.

The accused was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the High Court as well.

The counsel for the appellant has argued that the offence was committed without premeditation inthe sudden fight in the heat of passion and, thus, falls within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The appellant and the deceased are members of the family and that the dispute occurred on the question of raising the wall. The appellant is alleged to have hit the de- ceased with the Shovel, a common agricultural tool, and later picked up a stone to hit the deceased. Such injuries were caused in the heat of passion as is likely to cause death. Therefore, it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling within the first part of Section 304 IPC.

The SC held that accused and the deceased were from the same family. The cause of provocation was sudden, without premeditation. We find that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a case falling under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The injuries were inflicted without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken ad- vantage or acted cruelly or unusually and the accused is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part I.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!