Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 300, Exception 1, 304 II & 302 – “Culpable homicide not amounting to murder” – Strained relationship between accused and his father/deceased – Quarrel between father and son led to attacking deceased with a stone which resulted in his death – Evidence of PW2 & PW3, neighbours supported by Medical evidence PWs.2 & 3 established regular quarrel between father and son and on date of occurrence same resulted in assaulting deceased with stone – Heated quarrel resulted in grave and sudden provocation – Attacking with stone lying nearby shows no prior intention or premeditation on part of accused to murder deceased – Multiple blows with stone on head and other parts of bodies would show intention to cause such bodily injuries as is likely to cause death – Would fall within Exception 1 to Section 300 punishable under Section 304 I – Conviction under Section 302 modified to one under Section 304 I – Sentence reduced to RI for 7 years.
This appeal has been filed by the sole accused against the judgment of conviction. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the brother of the accused and the accused has a strained relationship with his father and on the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel between the accused and his father with regard to the demand of cash by the accused and the accused attacked his father with a stone on his head and all over his body, as a result, his father died, hence the accused has committed offences u/s. 294(b), 506(II) and 302 of IPC. After the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced for the offences u/s. 302 of IPC. Challenging the said judgment, the accused filed the present appeal.
The Hon’ble High Court finds that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eye witnesses to the offences and their presence cannot be doubted as they are neighbours and they are not interested witnesses and they deposed about the quarrel between the accused and deceased and the overt act of the accused and such evidence have not been discredited during their cross examination and the injuries stated in the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P7) are perfectly in line with the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and as per Ex.P.7, it is found that the deceased died due to multiple injuries and the FIR reached the Court within the reasonable time. From the above, the Hon’ble High Court held that the prosecution has proved their case.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that if the death is caused and the case is covered by any of the five exceptions of Section 300 of IPC, then such culpable homicide does not amount to murder and Section 304 of IPC does not create an offence, but provides for punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Section 304 of IPC draws a distinction for the penalty in cases covered by one of the five exceptions when there was intention to kill a person and where there was only knowledge that death would likely be caused and Section 304(I) of IPC will apply in a case where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, where it was done under grave and sudden provocation and Section 304(II) of IPC will be attracted when the accused had no intention to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death but had the knowledge that the injury would likely cause death and in the present case, the accused attacked the deceased with a stone lying nearby, which shows that there was no prior intention on the part of the accused person to murder the deceased, that is, there was no premeditation and the same can be brought within Exception I of Section 300 of IPC, but there was a heated quarrel between the accused and the deceased and the same resulted in provocation, which was grave and sudden, which resulted in the accused person taking a nearby stone and hitting his father on his head and other parts of the body, which resulted in his death and it was not a case of single blow and the accused person had given multiple blows to the deceased with the stone, so the accused had the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. From the above, the Hon’ble High Court holds that the facts of the present case can be brought under exception I of Section 300 of IPC and hence, is punishable u/s. 304(I) of IPC and not u/s. 302 of IPC.
In the result, this second appeal is partly allowed.
Murugesh Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District [Crl. A.(MD) No.413 of 2023 ] [2026 (1) MWN (Cr.) 351 (DB)] - Date of Judgment: 03.03.2026
