The injuries inflicted without premeditation in a sudden provocation to fall under Section 304 IPC: Supreme Court
In a case where the cause of provocation was sudden, without premeditation, the appellant was liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part I. The Court, in the matter of Pardeshiram vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1730 OF 2015], concluded from the facts and circumstances that the situation would fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The judgement was given by Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for causing death in a land dispute. The Senior Council for the appellant argued that the offence was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of passion and, thus, falls within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The appellant and the deceased were members of the same family and the dispute arose on the question of raising a wall.
The tool with which the appellant was alleged to hit the deceased with is a common tool used by agriculturalists which makes it evident that 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 judgement stated that, “The accused is an agriculturist, and the Shovel is a part of an agricultural tool that is possessed by agriculturists. The accused was attributed with the first blow with the Shovel followed a hit by a stone on the head of the deceased which was picked up from the street.”
It further stated, “The 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 advantage or acted cruelly or unusually. In this view of the matter, we find that the appellant is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part I.”
The Court kept in the view the 18 years of custody undergone by the appellant and taking in consideration the relationship between the accused and the deceased, was inclined to allow the appeal partly. The appellant was thus convicted under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and he was sentenced to the sentence already undergone. He was released hence