In a recent case decided by Supreme Court on 25.04.2024, the court partly allowed the appeal of the accused in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the IPC and altered the punishment to one under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC as the case fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
The case dates back to 18.08.2005 when the SHO of Police Station City Jagadhri received information about death of a person and who had been admitted in the Civil Hospital. As per the statement of the complainant an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the present Appellant. As per the facts of the case, to call the waiter the deceased used the word “hello”, which the appellant thought was used for him. Appellant started abusing the deceased in the name of his sister and walked up to the deceased and grappled with him. It followed a heated exchange. When they grappled out of the building of Dhaba, the complainant intervened to separate them and succeeded. The accused then rushed to his car, pulled out a bottle of glass which he broke on the bonnet of the car and inflicted five injuries on the body of the deceased violently, due to which the deceased fell to the ground bleeding and the deceased fled from the crime scene. When the decease was taken to hospital, he eventually succumbed to his injuries.
In the sessions court, the charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC; though the appellant contended deceased rushed towards him with a broken glass bottle in order to attack him, during which he had fallen down and suffered injured on his own body. But the Trial court decided the matter in the favour of Prosecution as they proved the matter beyond reasonable doubt, with the help of ocular witnesses.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the Appellant filed a Criminal Appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and also affirmed the judgment of trial court of the conviction of the accused and sentence awarded by the trial Court. After this, the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
Learned Advocate-on Record Mr. Jay Kishor Singh for the Appellant, argued that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without any premeditation, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. Therefore, the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC would not be maintainable and the offence would be required to be brought under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC.
Learned Deputy Advocate General Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma for the respondent-State, contended that both the trial and the High Court found the Appellant guilty for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC after considering the evidence presented before the court.
Supreme Court observed that testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveals that there was no premeditation and the fight happened in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel. The court also noted that Appellant had neither taken undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner on the basis of evidence.
Therefore, the court held that the matter falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and partly allowed the appeal. The punishment was changed to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, a further imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC.
CASE NAME: MOHD. AHSAN (APPELLANT) V STATE OF HARYANA (RESPONDENTS), 2024 INSC 338.
NAME: SHUBHI SRIVASTAVA, COURSE: B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), COLLEGE: JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
