Cause Of Quarrel Or Who Offered Provocation Is Irrelevant When Pleading Grave & Sudden Provocation As An Exception To Murder: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside a murder conviction and converted it into culpable homicide not amounting to murder, observing that the cause of the quarrel is an irrelevant factor to determine whether the act will be covered under the exception of murder, "grave and sudden provocation."

A division bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice N.S. Shekhawat said, "The cause of quarrel is not relevant nor it is relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor, but what is more important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and un-premeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken in any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner."

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the murder convict Mandeep, who was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000 under Section 302 of IPC in 2011. 

As per the prosecution, the convict Mandeep entered into a scuffle with the deceased and stabbed him with a knife in the stomach. Due to severe injury, the deceased passed away.

The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant and Mohinder Singh, deceased were close friends from childhood and used to sit together for meals and drinks etc. at the house of the brother of the deceased. 

On the date of the incident, both were sitting together and taking meals and all of a sudden there was a scuffle over a mobile phone of the appellant, he added.

He further contended that when the appellant asked him to return mobile, Mohinder had caused injuries to the appellant and at the spur of the moment, the appellant inflicted a single injury with a knife, which was lying there. Therefore, the appellant had no intention to kill the deceased and he was liable to be acquitted by this Court. 

"At the worst, the act attributed to the present appellant would constitute a lesser offence, that is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC as the case of the appellant fell within the Exception No.4 of Section 300 of IPC," added the counsel.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that to invoke the said exception, "four requirements have to be satisfied, normally:-

(i) it was a sudden fight:-

(ii) there was no pre-meditation;

(iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and

(iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner."

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in catena of judgments that in a heat of passion there must be no time for the passions to cool down and that the parties in that case before the Court worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning," added the bench.

Apart from that incident being the result of a sudden quarrel without pre-meditation, the law requires that the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner to be able to claim the benefit of Exception No.4 to Section 300 IPC, the Court held.

Reliance was placed on Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, [2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 57: 2002 (3)SCC 327] wherein the Supreme Court held,

“...All fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of not availing the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. After the injuries were inflicted and the injured had fallen down, the appellant is not shown to have inflicted any other injury upon his person when he was in a helpless position. It is proved that in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel followed by a fight, the accused who was armed with Bhala caused injuries at random and thus did not act in a cruel or unusual manner."

The bench further noted that as per the testimony of the witnesses, "both the appellant as well as Mohinder, deceased were neighbours. There was no history of enmity between both the parties."

"the weapon of offence i.e knife in the present case had the dimension of 15 cm (about 06 inches) in length and 2.2 cm in width (maximum) with one sharp surface and one blunt surface. In fact, such kind of knives are easily available in every house for cutting vegetables etc. and the said knife was used in the commission of crime. Consequently, it is apparent that by causing an injury with such a knife, the present appellant had no intention to commit the murder of Mohinder, deceased," noted the Court.

However, this knife was used with such force that the person had met his death; knowledge has to be imputed to the appellant and in that situation, the present case would fall in Part II of Section 304 IPC, the bench opined.

The Court also considered that in the present case, the appellant had admittedly not acted in a cruel or unusual manner and it was a fight, which had taken place at the spur of the moment.

Stating that the appellant has already faced the agony of trial/appeal for the last about 14 years. Even, at the time of commission of crime, he had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the Court said that the ends of justice would be suitably met if the sentence imposed on the present appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 

In light of the above, the appeal was partly allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction was ordered to be upheld and the order of sentence was modified to the extent that the sentence imposed on him was reduced to the period already undergone.

Title: Mandeep v. State of Haryana

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 184

Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

 Click here to read/download the order