Sudden quarrel — No premeditation — Knowledge inferred in law Where the act was committed in the midst of a sudden quarrel and group clash without premeditation, and the accused himself suffered injuries in the same transaction, the offence could not be elevated to murder, though knowledge of likelihood of death could be inferred in law. (Paras 5.5, 5.6)

advocatemmmohan

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 299, 300, 302, 304 Part II, 147, 148, 149 — Culpable homicide — Murder — Free fight — Single blow — Individual role — Absence of common object — Knowledge without intention

A. Free fight — Unlawful assembly — Common object not proved
Where the incident arose out of a sudden quarrel leading to a free fight between two rival groups, and injuries were sustained on both sides, it was held that formation of unlawful assembly with a common object was not established. Conviction with the aid of Section 149 IPC was therefore unsustainable. Offences under Sections 147 and 148 IPC were also not proved.
(Paras 5.2, 5.2.1)

B. Individual act — Single blow with lathi — Medical corroboration
The appellant was attributed a specific individual role of causing a single lathi blow on the head of the deceased. Medical evidence established that the fatal injury was caused by a hard and blunt object and resulted in fracture of parietal bone leading to death.
(Paras 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 5.3)

C. Section 302 vis-à-vis Section 304 Part II — Intention and knowledge — Distinction
In the absence of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, but where knowledge could be attributed having regard to the nature of weapon and injury inflicted, the offence would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
(Paras 5.1, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.4.1, 5.4)

D. Sudden quarrel — No premeditation — Knowledge inferred in law
Where the act was committed in the midst of a sudden quarrel and group clash without premeditation, and the accused himself suffered injuries in the same transaction, the offence could not be elevated to murder, though knowledge of likelihood of death could be inferred in law.
(Paras 5.5, 5.6)

E. Sentence — Advanced age — Period already undergone
While sustaining conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, sentence was reduced to the period already undergone, considering that the appellant was more than 80 years of age and had already undergone incarceration of six years and three months.
(Paras 6, 6.1)

---

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court undertook a structured examination of culpable homicide jurisprudence, beginning with a detailed restatement of Sections 299, 300, and 304 IPC (Paras 5–5.1.5). The Court reiterated that culpable homicide is the genus and murder its species, and that the dividing line rests primarily on intention versus knowledge.

On facts, the Court found that the occurrence was not premeditated, but arose from a sudden quarrel when the deceased went to the appellant’s house following an earlier altercation between their sons (Paras 3–3.5). The evidence revealed a free fight, with injuries on both sides, including serious head injuries to the appellant himself (Paras 3.3, 5.3).

The Court approved the High Court’s reasoning that Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC were not attracted, as there was no proof of common object or unlawful assembly (Paras 5.2–5.2.1). Liability, therefore, had to be determined on the basis of the individual act of the appellant.

Medical evidence conclusively established that the death resulted from a single head injury caused by a blunt object (lathi) (Paras 3.7–3.9). However, considering the circumstances — absence of premeditation, sudden fight, single blow, and mutual injuries — the Court held that the case did not meet the threshold of murder under Section 300 IPC.

Applying the principles explained in Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana (Paras 5.1.4–5.1.4.1), the Court held that the appellant could be attributed knowledge of likelihood of death, but not intention, thereby correctly bringing the case under Section 304 Part II IPC (Paras 5.4–5.5).

On sentencing, the Court exercised judicial discretion by taking into account the appellant’s advanced age, the long lapse of time, and the substantial period of incarceration already undergone, and reduced the sentence accordingly (Paras 6–6.1).

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where death is caused by a single blow with a blunt weapon in the course of a sudden quarrel and free fight, without premeditation and without proof of common object, and where the accused himself suffers injuries in the same transaction, the offence does not amount to murder under Section 302 IPC; however, knowledge of likelihood of death may be inferred, attracting Section 304 Part II IPC, with liability to be determined on the basis of the individual act of the accused.