CRL.A./388/2002 of AMAR BAHADUR Vs STATE
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 1 of 20
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th January, 2026
Uploaded on: 15th January, 2026
+ CRL.A. 388/2002
AMAR BAHADUR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Tej Singh Varun – Amicus Curiae
along with Ms. Pooja Kumari, Advs.
versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Rai Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present criminal appeal arises out of judgment dated 22nd
January, 2002(hereinafter, ‘the impugned judgment’) and order of sentence
dated 24 th January, 2002 (hereinafter, ‘the impugned order of sentence’ ),
passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 59/99
titled ‘State v. Am ar Bahadur’ , arising from FIR No. 357/98 , registered
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) at PS
Keshav Puram.
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 2 of 20
3. The brief facts that are relevant for the present appeal are that an
incident took place on 19 thOctober, 1998 at M.D. Exports, C-34 Industrial
Area, Lawrence Road. The said premises is a factory where several workers,
including the deceased as well as the Appellant used to work . The alleged
incident took place around Diwali in the year 1998. On the d ate of the
incident, the Appellant– Amar Bahadur, along with the co-workers– Mr. Dal
Bahadur,Mr. Suresh Rana, Mr. Narinder Bahadur, Mr. Ashiq Thapa, Mr. Dil
Bahadur, Mr. Abdul and the deceased– Mr. Bal Bahadur were all working in
the Khanni Department of the factory. In the said department, buffal o meat
flesh was being removed and transported for packing. The workers were
given a break from about 8 P.M. till 10:30 P.M.
4. Once they returned to work, around 11:30 P.M, certain abuses were
exchanged between the Appellant and the deceased- Mr. Bal Bahadur. Th e
said skirmish then led to a physical fight wherein the decease d had pinned
the Appellant to the ground due to which in a fit of rage, t he Appellant
picked up a knife used for cutting meat and attacked the deceased.
5. In this attack, several wounds were inflicted upon the deceased w hich
led to his demise. The co-workers had taken the deceased initia lly to one
private nursing home and thereafter by the time he could be taken to Hindu
Rao Hospital, he was declared dead.
6. This led to registration of FIR No. 357/98 under section 302, IPC.
The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was then conduct ed and
the report thereof revealed several wounds which were as under:
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 3 of 20
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 4 of 20
7. Charges were then framed in the matter before the sessions court vide
order on charge dated 6th August, 1999 and thereafter, 21 prosecution
witnesses were examined during the course of trial. The sum mary of
evidence and details of witnesses is set out in the impugned j udgement as
under:
“3. Prosecution in support of its case, in all, have
examined 21 witnesses, PW1 conducted the post mortem
on the body of the deceased and the post mortem report
is Ex. PW1/A. The application for post mortem is
Ex.PW1/B and brief facts supplied by document vide Ex.
PW1/C and inquest report is Ex. PW1/D1 to D:
PW2 has proved the scaled site plan which Ex. PW2/A.
PW3 has proved the MLC No. 15517/98 of patient Amar
Bahadur which is Ex. PW3/A.
PW4 has proved the DD no.3A copy of which is Ex.
PW4/A. He has also proved the FIR copy of which is Ex.
PW4/B.
PW5 took four parcels along with sample seal to FSL,
Malvia Nagar vide RC no.95/21 and deposited the
same.
PW6, PW7, PW10, PWl4 are the alleged eye witnesses
of the occurrence who have supported the case of the
prosecution on all material particulars. PWl6 who is
another eye witnesshas not supported the case of the
prosecution.
PW8 has proved the MLC of deceased Bal Bahadur
which is EX, PW8/A.
PW9 identified the dead body of Bal Bahadur and his
statement is Ex. PW9/A and he received the dead body
vide memo Ex.PW9/B.
PW11 is constable Ranbir Singh who accompanied SI
Raj Singh on receipt of DD No.23A. In his presence the
knife Ex. P-1 was seized vide memo Ex. PW11/A,
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 5 of 20
PW12 Ct. Sher Singh and PW18 Ct. Rakesh were left by
SI Raj Singh at the spot and in their presence sketch of
the knife was prepared which is Ex. PW6/B. Blood was
lifted from the spot and taken in police possession vid e
memo Ex. PW12/B.
PW13, Dr. Ramesh Chander Garg has deposed that
about three years back, on the night of the festival of
Dewali, one injured who looked to be of Nepali origin,
was brought by two other Nepali who was having
multiple injuries on his body and blood was oozing o ut.
He advised to take him to some government hospital.
PW15, Anant Lal who was working as Manager in the
said factory, has produced Attendance Register which
was seized vide memo Ex. PW15/A and the copy of Page
No.38 is Ex. PW15/B.
PWl7 delivered the copies of the FIR at the residences
of
Senior Officers and to the Ilaka Magistrate at his
residence.
PW19 is SI Raj Singh who on receipt of DD No.23A
which is Ex. PW4/A reached the spot. He then, took the
injured Bal Bahadur to Hindu Rao Hospital where he
was declared dead and the MLC is Ex.PW8/A. He
recorded the statement of Dal Bahadur on which he
made his endorsement in rukka which is collectively Ex.
PW6/A and sent the same for registration of the case.
He seized the knife Ex. P-1 by converting it into a
pulanda sealed with the seal of PK and taken in polic e
possession vide memo Ex. PW11/A. He seized the blood
sample, vide memo Ex. PW12/A.
He also recorded the statement of the accused Ex.
PW19/A,
PW20 is the IO of the case who recorded the statement
of the witnesses and after completing the necessary
investigation filed the challan against the accused.
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 6 of 20
PW21, HC Kanwar Singh has deposed that on 20.10.98
inspector Pradeep Kumar deposited four parcels sealed
with the seal of PK which he deposited in Malkhana
vide Entry no.1886, copy of which is Ex. PW21/A. He
further deposed that on 16.12.98 the said four parcels
with the said seal were sent to FSL, Malvia Nagar
through Ct, Jagat pal.”
8. The witnesses proved the inquest report, the site plan, the MLC, as
also the DD Nos., etc. Four eye witnesses i.e. PW-6, PW-7, PW-10, PW -14
and PW-16 were also examined and all of them supported the case o f the
prosecution.
9. However, the relevant statements from the deposition of PW-6 – Dhat
Bahadur would show that the deceased and the Appellant had star ted
fighting and there was a physical altercation between them, leadin g to
exchange of abusive language as well.The deposition of PW-6– Dhat
Bahadur is set out below:
“PW-6
Dhat Bahadur son of Sh. Sita Ram,24 years, r/o-M-
455, Shakurpur, Delhi,.
On SA
On 19.10.98 I was residing at M-494, Shakurpur. I was
working at AhanniDeptt. at ND Export situated at, C-
34, Laweranoe Road, Industrial Area. The accused
Amar Bahadur present in court was also working in
the same deptt within the same factory. The deceased
Bal Bahadur was also working with us in the same
factory. Suresh Rana, Narender, Ashlq Thapa Dhan
Bahadur, Amar Bahadur and Bal Bahadur were also
working with us in the same factory in the said deptt.
We used to handle the meat of he - Buffeloow in which
the factory was dealing its packing, fridging etc. When
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 7 of 20
on 19.10.98 we were on duty in our shift which started
from 6 p.m. we left for dinner at 8 p.m.to our
residence.Ordinarily we used to return after return at 9
p.m. but on 19.10.98 as it was a_Diwali festival day,
our supervisor has relaxed our time for dinner so as to
celebrate the Diwali and he permitted us to return _
back at 10 or 10.30 p.m. Accordingly we returned to
the factory after dinner at about 10.30 p.m..
At about 11.15 p.m. the deceased Bal Bahadur and
the accused; started fighting and there was an
altercation between them , exchange of abuses. The
deceased Bal Bahadur pushed the accused on the
ground on which accused Amar Bahadur became
angry and picked up a knife of meat cutting used in
the factory and when he was about to give a blow of
the same on the deceased Bal Bahadur, the deceased
Bal Bahadur, caught hold of the knife. The accused
snatched the knife due to which deceased Bal
Bahadur fell down and back was up and the accused
Amar Bahadur gave him two knife blows at the back
of his neck. The accused tried to escape from the spot
but we all the same persons over powered the accused
alongwith the knife. Thereafter the deceased Bal
Bahadur was removed to a Nursing Home in a three
wheeler at Trinagar. The nursing home refused to
take him and deceased Bal Bahadur expired there.
I gave a call from the nursing home to my factory to
send a vehicle. Accordingly a tempo of make TATA
came from the company to the nursing home. Deceased
Bal Bahadur was laid down in the said vehicle and was
taken to the factory. Police had arrived at the factory.
The police advised to take him to HR hospltal.
Accordingly deceased Bal Bahadur was taken in that
vehicle to Hindu Rao Hospital. The doctor declared
him dead at the HR Hospital. Police recorded my
statement at the hospital which was signed by me and
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 8 of 20
the same is Ex.PW6/A which was earlier mark A and
the same is signed by me at point A on the back side. I
can identify the knife if shown to me.
(At this stage one sealed parcel with the seal of
FSl,Delhi is opened). The knife is blood stained and the
same is Ex.P1 which the witness identifies as the same
used by the accused while causing injuries to deceased
Bal Bahadur. The deceased after falling down first
time on the ground tried to save himself by rushing
away but he could rush to a small distance when he
was again made to fall on the ground by the accused,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx by the accused.
(Deferred at the request of accused)”
Similar testimony has also been given by the other eye witnesses as well.
9. Further, the statement of the Appellant under Section 313, Cr.P. C.
was also recorded in which he had denied the allegations aga inst him. One
of the relevant statements made by the Appellant u/s 313, Cr.P.C. is as
under :
“Q. Have you anything else to say ?
Ans. I am innocent and I have been falsely
implicated in this case. On the day at the time of
incident I was not present at the place of occurrence,
later on I was arrested from my house and have been
falsely implicated in this case.”
10. The impugned judgment has been passed after considering the
evidence which has been tendered by all the witnesses. However, n o
evidence has been led by the Appellant in this matter. On the basis of the all
the evidence which was recorded, the Trial Court came to the followi ng
conclusions:
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 9 of 20
i. The Court rejected the plea that the testimony of the eye-
witnesses is not worth placing reliance on;
ii. The Court also rejected the plea that the testimony of PW- 10–
Narinder Bahadur, being the son of the deceased, is not reliable, as he
was not present at the place of incidence and had, in fact, visited only
the hospital where the deceased was taken.
iii. Insofar as the other witnesses, i.e.PW-6, PW-7 & PW-14 are
concerned, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there are no
contradictions or improvements in their testimonies. The relevant
paragraphs read as under:
“8. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Ld.
APP that all the public witnesses examined by the
prosecution belong to one community, one race and
one country, nothing has been brought on record that
there was any previous enmity between the witnesses
and the accused. He has submitted that the
’contradictions or Improvements which have been
pointed out by ld. counsel for the accused in the
testimony of PW6, PW7 and PW10 are neither
contradictions nor Improvements. He has submitted
that perception of a person differ from one another. A
person may react differently in a given situation. He
has submitted that the manner in which the incident
had taken place has been narrated by the witnesses
and there is no reason to disbelief their testimony. I t
has also been submitted that the accused was
apprehended by the co-workers along with the weapon
of offence which was seized by the police. After giving
my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of
both the parties I find that both PW6 and PW7 and
PW14 have categorically stated the manner in which
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 10 of 20
the incident had taken place. All these witnesses had
seen the accused inflicting the knife blows on the
body of the deceased. It has also come in their
evidence that after attacking the deceased with a knife
the accused tried to run who was apprehended by the
co-workers along with the knife Ex. P-1. I do not
agree with the contentions raised by the counsel for
the accused that there are any contradictions or
Improvements in the testimony of these witnesses.
There Is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these
witnesses.”
iv. Insofar as the alleged delay in informing the police is
concerned, the same has been considered by the Trial Court, which
has held that there is clear explanation as to why the police was called
within a two hour gap from the occurrence of the event. Thereafte r,
the Trial Court has come to the conclusion on the basis o f the post
mortem report as under:
“15, In view of my above discussion, I am of the
considered opinion that the accused committed the
murder of Bal Bahadur as has come in the testimony of
PW6 and PW7. Both these witnesses as well as the
accused and deceased were of one community, one
race and one country. There is nothing on record to
show any previous enmity between the accused and the
witnesses. In the statement recorded u/S 313 Cr.P.C.
also no explanation has been given by the accused of
having been falsely implicated.. The only statement he
made is that on the day at the time of incident he was
not present at the place of occurrence. This statement
is falsified by the attendance register Ex. p-2 and the
entry Ex.PW15/B. The prosecution has, thus, been able
to prove its case against the accused beyond any
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 11 of 20
shadow of reasonable doubt, and as such I hold the
accused guilty u/S 302, I.P.C. and convict him
accordingly”
11. As can be seen from the above, the Court has held the Respo ndent
guilty under Section 302, IPC and has convicted him accordingl y. In terms
of the impugned order of sentence, the Appellant has been awarded
imprisonment for life.The impugned order of sentence reads as under:
“It has been submitted by the counsel for the accused
that he is aged about 24 years of age. He has clean
antecedents and is not a previous convict. There is also
no criminal record of the accused. He has submitted
that it does not fall in the category of Rarest of r are
cases and as such minimum punishment prescribed u/S
302 IPC be awarded to him.
On the other hand, Ld. APP has opposed the same.
From the record I find that this case does not fall in
the category of Rarest of Rare cases and as such the
accused is ordered to undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in case of default
to further go RI for three months.”
12. The appeal against the impugned judgment was filed on behalf of the
Appellant and notice was issued on 14th May, 2002. On the s aid date, the
appeal itself was admitted. Vide order dated 13th May, 2004, the
predecessor bench had granted suspension of sentence during the pendency
of the appeal in the following terms:
“By this application, appellant -Amar Bahadur prays
for suspension of sentence and grant of bail till the
disposal of the appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 12 of 20
Having regard to the fact that the appellant has
already undergone more than five years of sentence
and his appeal is not likely to be taken up for disposal
in the near future, we suspend the sentence awarded
to him in sessions case No.59/99, arising out of FIR
No.357/98, till the disposal of the appeal, subject to
appellant’s furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, out
of which one shall be a local surety, to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
The application stands disposed of.
The order shall be communicated to the appellant,
through Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar.”
13. Thereafter, on 4th March, 2005, the Court considered the plea of the
Appellant and reduced the amount of the personal bail bond in the following
terms:
“ We have carefully perused both the aforesaid
judgments. Although in the judgment of Moti Ram
&others (supra), the aforesaid observations, which are
extracted in the preceding paragraph, were made with
reference to "little offences" yet the said observations,
when read together with the observations made in the
case of Hussainara Khatoon & Others (supra), in our
considered opinion, would also be applicable to the
facts of the present case in view of the fact situation
that the appellant still continues to remain in custo dy
for more than six long years despite an order in his
favour suspending his sentence of imprisonment.
In view of the aforesaid settled position of law and
in consideration of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, with particular
reference to his poverty due to which he is unable to
avail the benefit, we modify our earlier orders by
ordering that the sentence of the imprisonment of the
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 13 of 20
appellant shall remain suspended on furnishing
personal bond of Rs.5,000/- with one surety of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty
Magistrate. It is however, made clear that this order is
passed in the facts and circumstances of the present
case. It is, however, clarified that the appellant on his
release in terms of this order shall report to the Poli ce
Station at Keshav Puram, Delhi every month, until
further orders.
Copy of this order be sent to the SHO of the
Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi by the Registry of
this Court and a copy of this order be given to the
counsel for the parties. Copies be also sent to Jail for
information of the Jail Authorities as well of the
accused.”
14. The matter was, thereafter, listed for hearing for the first time on 26th
September, 2019. Notice was issued repeatedly to the Appell ant, however,
despite bailable warrants being issued, he could not be traced. The repeated
status reports filed thereafter would show that neither the App ellant, nor the
sureties are traceable.
15. Mr. Bahri, ld. APP submits that proceedings u/s 84, BNSS, 202 3,
were also initiated against the Appellant for declaring him a pro claimed
offender and the same are pending before the Joint Registrar.
16. It is further noted that vide order dated 9th August, 2023, the Court
had appointed Mr. Tej Singh Varun, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to defend
the case of the Appellant.
17. Today, the matter has been heard at length, while the proceedin gs u/s
84, BNSS, 2023, are still pending before the Joint Registrar. Ho wever,
considering that the incident is of 1998 and the appeal was fil ed in 2002, the
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 14 of 20
Court deems it appropriate to finally hear the appeal and di spose it of on
merits.
18. The issue for consideration is whether the case of the Appell ant has
been rightly covered under Section 302 of the IPC or whether the s entence
awarded to the Appellant deserves to be reduced.
19. A perusal of the evidence tendered before the Trial Court wo uld
reveal that clearly, there was no premeditated plan of the Appellant to cause
any injury to the deceased or to kill him. All the witnesse s have
unanimously stated that there was some exchange of abuse, leadin g to
physical altercations that took place between the Appellant and t he
deceased. In fact, PW-6– Dhat Bahadur, who is one of the eye-witnesses has
clearly stated that it was the deceased who had firstly pinned the Appellant
on the ground, due to which, in retaliation, the Appellant appeared to have
picked up the knife and stabbed the deceased due to grave and sudden
provocation.
20. Mr. Bahri, ld. APP has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab 1958 AIR 465 to argue that all
the necessary ingredients under Section 300, IPC, i.e. the intention to inflict
the injury that is found to be present and the injury bei ng sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, were fulfilled in facts of the present
case.
21. The settled position of law, as is clear from the princip les highlighted
in the judgment of Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC
444, is that the intention of the accused is a pivotal question in deciding
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 15 of 20
whether the case falls under Sections 302, 304 Part I or 304 Part II of IPC.
Further, to gather t he accused’s intention to cause death, a perusal of the
following circumstances are essential:
“29. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal
question of intention, with care and caution, as that will
decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I
or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters —
plucking of a fruit, straying of cattle, quarrel of children,
utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance,
may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in
deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or
suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. Ther e may be
no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there
may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum,
there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to
avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case
that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts
to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section
302, are not converted into offences punishable under
Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable
under Section 302. The intention to cause death can be
gathered generally from a combination of a few or several
of the following, among other, circumstances: (i) nature of
the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the
accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the
blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of
force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in
the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all
fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether
there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any
prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii)
whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if
so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the
heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury
has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and
unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 16 of 20
blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of
course, not exhaustive and there may be several oth er special
circumstances with reference to individual cases wh ich may
throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may.”
22. The settled position in law as is clear from the judgment discussed
above is that if there is no premeditation, the case would get c overed under
Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. This position of law is further reiterated in
a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of
Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770, wherein the death was caused by an iron
pipe due to exchange of hot words in a heated situation. The Supreme Court
in the said judgment held that whenever there is a sudden f ight without
premeditation, it cannot be held to be an offence under Section 302. Th e
relevant portion of the judgment has been extracted below:
“3. The prosecution story is that the appellant, Ankush
Shivaji Gaikwad accompanied by Madhav Shivaji
Gaikwad (Accused 2) and Shivaji Bhivaji Gaikwad
(Accused 3) were walking past the field of the deceased
when a dog owned by the deceased started barking at
them. Angered by the barking of the animal, the
appellant is alleged to have hit the dog with the iron
pipe that he was carrying in his hand. The deceased
objected to the appellant beating the dog, whereupon the
appellant started abusing the former and told him to
keep quiet or else he too would be beaten like a dog. The
exchange of hot words, it appears, led to a scuffle
between the deceased and the accused persons in the
course whereof, while Accused 2 and 3 beat the
deceased with fist and kicks, the appellant hit the
deceased with the iron pipe on the head.
xxxx
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 17 of 20
11. It was argued that the incident in question took
place on a sudden fight without any premeditation and
the act of the appellant hitting the deceased was
committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden
quarrel without the appellant having taken undue
advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner.
There is, in our opinion, considerable merit in that
contention. We say so for three distinct reasons:
xxxx
27. Coming back to the case at hand, we are of the
opinion that the nature of the simple injury inflicted by
the accused, the part of the body on which it was
inflicted, the weapon used to inflict the same and the
circumstances in which the injury was inflicted do not
suggest that the appellant had the intention to kill the
deceased. All that can be said is that the appellant had
the knowledge that the injury inflicted by him was
likely to cause the death of the deceased. The case
would, therefore, more appropriately fall under Section
304 Part II IPC.
xxxx
68. In the result, we allow this appeal but only to the
extent that instead of Section 302 IPC the appellant
shall stand convicted for the offence of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder punishable under
Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The
fine imposed upon the appellant and the default
sentence awarded to him shall remain unaltered. The
appeal is disposed of in the above terms in modification
of the order passed by the courts below. A copy of this
order be forwarded to the Registrars General of the
High Courts in the country for circulation among the
Judges handling criminal trials and hearing appeals.”
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 18 of 20
23. A similar situation was examined by the Supreme Court in Khuman
Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763, where a sudden quarrel over a
trivial issue led to a fatal injury. In that context, the Supreme Court observed
as under:
“8. The question falling for consideration is whether
the appellant-accused intentionally caused the death of
deceased Veer Singh? The entire incident occurred
when the appellant had taken his buffaloes for grazing
in the field of the deceased for which the deceased
objected and drove all the buffaloes out of his field. It
is in these circumstances, the appellant became furious
and abused the deceased and caused injuries on his
head in a sudden fight with axe. There was no
premeditation for the occurrence and because of the
grazing of the cattle, in a sudden fight, the occurrenc e
had taken place.
9. The question to be considered is whether the act of
the appellant-accused would fall under Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC? Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can
be invoked if death is caused : (a) without
premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the
offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have
been with the person killed. In the present case, the
appellant-accused and the deceased exchanged wordy
abuses on which, the appellant gave the deceased
blows on his head causing six head injuries. Where
the occurrence took place suddenly and there was no
premeditation on the part of the accused, it falls
under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
10. As discussed earlier, the entire incident was in a
sudden fight in which the appellant-accused caused
head injuries on the deceased with an axe. There was
no prior deliberation or determination to fight. The
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 19 of 20
sudden quarrel arose between the parties due to trivial
issue of grazing the buffaloes of the appellant for
which, the deceased raised objection. In a sudden fight,
the appellant had inflicted blows on the head of the
deceased with an axe which caused six head injuries.
Though the weapon used by the appellant was axe and
the injuries were inflicted on the vital part of the body
viz. head, knowledge is attributable to the appellant-
accused that the injuries are likely to cause death.
Considering the fact that the occurrence was in a
sudden fight, in our view, the occurrence would fall
under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction
of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC is
therefore to be modified as conviction under Section
304 Part II IPC.”
24. In view of the above discussion, since there was no pre-m editation to
cause any hurt or eventual death, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts
of the present case, the act committed by the Appellant would c onstitute
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Accordingly, the conv iction of
the Appellant is converted to Section 304 Part II of the IPC and the sentence
of the Appellant is reduced to 10 years.
25. Since the sentence has now been reduced and as per the latest
nominal roll on record, the Appellant has already undergone the sentence to
the extent of 4 years 2 months and 16 days, and has also been o n remission
for 2 years 27 days, thus, upon the Appellant being traced, he shall serve the
remaining portion of the sentence in terms of this order.
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified
CRL.A. 388/2002 Page 20 of 20
26. Let the case file be transferred to the Joint Registrar for contin uation
of the proceedings u/s 84, BNSS, 2023 and for ensuring the Appellant’s
appearance for serving of the remaining sentence.
27. The appeal is disposed of in these terms. Pending applicat ions, if any,
are also disposed of.
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANUARY 7, 2026/Prg/dj/ss
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:15.01.2026
18:12:59
Signature Not Verified