'Fight Took Place In Spur Of Moment, No Premeditation': Punjab & Haryana HC Modifies Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has modified the conviction of a murder case under Section 302 IPC into culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, observing that the fight which took place between the convict and deceased was not premeditated.A division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh said, "This Court is conscious of the fact that...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has modified the conviction of a murder case under Section 302 IPC into culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, observing that the fight which took place between the convict and deceased was not premeditated.
A division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Kirti Singh said, "This Court is conscious of the fact that the incident occurred in the year 2006 when a sudden fight took place between the accused and deceased, there was no premeditation and the offence was committed in the spur of the moment. The appellant was unarmed and the injury was caused by a brick blow. This Court is of the view that conviction of the appellant would not fall under Section 302 IPC but fall under Section 304 Part-I IPC."
The Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in 2009 whereby the appellant, Harry Ram was convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was made by the brother of the deceased that in 2006, he saw that altercation took place with his brother and the appellant. Ram allegedly gave a brick blow on the forehead of Vajra Rai and on an alarm being raised, he ran away from the spot after throwing the brick.
It was stated that blood was percolating from the forehead of Vajra Rai, brother of the complainant, who succumbed to the injuries received at the hands of the accused at the spot itself. It was stated that the motive behind the occurrence was that both the deceased and accused were working in one dairy and they developed some dispute over nature of work to be done by them.
After completion of investigation by the investigating officer, the final report under Section 173 CrPC was instituted against the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
As per the post mortem report Vajra Rai died due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course.
The Sessions Judge after examining the entire evidence led by prosecution held the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
After hearing the submissions, the Court placed its reliance upon Sudhakar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) in which it was held that in a spur of moment, quarrel between the father and the son took place and father took out a knife and inflicted stab injury, thus, in such circumstances, the sentence was converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.
The Court also referred to Sanjeev v. State of Haryana (2015) where it was held that if there was no premeditation and the offence is committed by the accused in the spur of moment, it will be covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as such the same is punishable under Section 304 Part-I, IPC.
Consequently, the Court opined that the incident occurred in the year 2006 when a sudden fight took place between the accused and deceased, there was no premeditation and the offence was committed in the spur of the moment.
The appellant was unarmed and the injury was caused by a brick blow. This Court was of the view that conviction of the appellant would not fall under Section 302 IPC but fall under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
On quantum of sentence, the Court noted that the appellant had been facing protracted criminal proceedings for about 14 years, was not granted the benefit of suspension of sentence and has undergone an actual sentence of over 16 years.
It stated that there was nothing to indicate that he is involved in any other criminal case and after the incident and there is nothing adverse against his conduct.
"The ends of justice would meet, if the sentence of the appellant would be reduced to the period already undergone by him," said the bench.
Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed and it decided that the sentence of 16 years undergone by the appellant would be adequate for the offence under Part-I of Section 304 IPC.
Suram Singh Rana, Advocate and Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.
Aftab Singh Khara, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 96
Title: Harey Ram v. State of Punjab