ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: A single fatal blow inflicted with a blunt weapon during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, attracts Section 304 Part II IPC when the accused acts with knowledge of likely death but without intention to kill. In a free fight with injuries on both sides, absence of prior concert or meeting of minds negates common object under Section 149 IPC. Medical evidence corroborating ocular testimony regarding a fatal head injury is sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. Advanced age of the accused, long lapse of time since the offence, and substantial incarceration already undergone justify reduction of sentence to the period already served, without disturbing the conviction.

Saturday, January 10, 2026

A single fatal blow inflicted with a blunt weapon during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, attracts Section 304 Part II IPC when the accused acts with knowledge of likely death but without intention to kill. In a free fight with injuries on both sides, absence of prior concert or meeting of minds negates common object under Section 149 IPC. Medical evidence corroborating ocular testimony regarding a fatal head injury is sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. Advanced age of the accused, long lapse of time since the offence, and substantial incarceration already undergone justify reduction of sentence to the period already served, without disturbing the conviction.

advocatemmmohan

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 299, 300, 304 Part II

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Single blow – Knowledge without intention

Where death is caused by a single blow with a blunt weapon during a sudden quarrel and free fight, without premeditation, and the circumstances indicate knowledge that the act was likely to cause death but no intention to cause death, the offence falls under Section 304 Part II IPC, and not under Section 302 IPC.
(Paras 5.1–5.1.5, 5.4–5.6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149

Unlawful assembly – Common object – Not established

In a free fight arising out of a sudden quarrel, where both sides sustain injuries and there is no evidence of prior meeting of minds, common object under Section 149 IPC is not established, and conviction under Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC is unsustainable.
(Paras 5.2–5.2.1)

Evidence – Ocular and medical evidence

Single head injury – Corroboration

Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC can be sustained where ocular evidence attributing a blow to the accused is corroborated by medical evidence showing a fatal head injury caused by a hard and blunt object.
(Paras 3.7–3.9, 5.3–5.4)

Right of private defence – Extent

Where the accused also suffers injuries in the same occurrence and the incident arises out of a sudden clash, the plea of private defence may explain absence of premeditation, but does not exonerate the accused when his individual act causes death with knowledge of likely consequences.
(Paras 3.3, 5.3–5.5)

Sentencing – Reduction on humanitarian grounds

Advanced age – Long lapse of time – Period already undergone

While upholding conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, the sentence may be reduced to period already undergone, considering advanced age of the appellant, long passage of time since the offence, and substantial incarceration already suffered.
(Paras 6–6.1)

ANALYSIS

1. Nature of the incident

The occurrence arose from a sudden quarrel between neighbours, culminating in a free fight involving both sides. Injuries were suffered by the deceased as well as by the appellant.
(Paras 3–3.4, 5.2)

2. Absence of common object

The Court affirmed the High Court’s finding that the facts did not disclose formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object to kill. Consequently, collective liability under Section 149 IPC was ruled out.
(Paras 5.2–5.2.1)

3. Individual role of the appellant

The appellant’s liability was assessed individually, based on evidence that he delivered a lathi blow on the head of the deceased. The medical evidence confirmed a fatal head injury caused by a blunt object.
(Paras 3.7–3.9, 5.3–5.4)

4. Distinction between murder and culpable homicide

The Court revisited the statutory distinction between Sections 299, 300, and 304 IPC, reiterating that absence of intention to cause death, coupled with presence of knowledge of likely fatal consequences, attracts Section 304 Part II IPC.
(Paras 5.1–5.1.5)

5. Application to facts

Given the suddenness of the fight, lack of premeditation, use of a blunt weapon, and the context of mutual assault, the offence did not amount to murder. However, the appellant was attributed knowledge that the act could cause death.
(Paras 5.4–5.6)

6. Sentence modification

Although conviction was sustained, the Court exercised discretion to reduce the sentence to period already undergone, considering that the appellant was over 80 years of age and had already undergone more than six years of incarceration.
(Paras 6–6.1)

RATIO DECIDENDI

A single fatal blow inflicted with a blunt weapon during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, attracts Section 304 Part II IPC when the accused acts with knowledge of likely death but without intention to kill.
In a free fight with injuries on both sides, absence of prior concert or meeting of minds negates common object under Section 149 IPC.
Medical evidence corroborating ocular testimony regarding a fatal head injury is sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Advanced age of the accused, long lapse of time since the offence, and substantial incarceration already undergone justify reduction of sentence to the period already served, without disturbing the conviction.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN