Recently, the Delhi High Court drew a crucial distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ while dealing with a case arising out of a drunken quarrel between two friends. The Court held that where a fatal assault occurs in the heat of the moment, without premeditation, prior enmity, or a pre-planned weapon, the offence may fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part II of the IPC rather than Section 302 of the IPC. Emphasising the fine legal divide between ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge,’ the Bench observed that acts committed in sudden rage and intoxication, absent a deliberate design to kill, cannot automatically be treated as murder.
Brief facts:
The case arose out of a fatal incident at the Appellant’s rented room, where the deceased had accompanied him to consume liquor. According to the prosecution, a quarrel broke out between the two over payment for liquor, during which the deceased allegedly slapped the Appellant. It was alleged that the Appellant, in a sudden fit of rage, assaulted the deceased with a brick lying nearby, resulting in his death. The prosecution further relied upon an alleged extra-judicial confession made before the landlord of the premises.
An FIR under Section 302 of the IPC was registered, and during the investigation, the police recovered the blood-stained brick and other forensic exhibits from the spot. The post-mortem and FSL reports supported the prosecution's case by linking the blood found on the weapon and the Appellant’s clothes with the deceased. Relying upon the chain of circumstantial evidence, including the “last seen together” theory, extra-judicial confession, and scientific evidence, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, which was challenged before the High Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. The Counsel contended that the case primarily rested on an alleged extra-judicial confession, which was unreliable and unsupported by contemporaneous police records. The Appellant further pointed to the delay in registration of the FIR, absence of direct eyewitnesses, and alleged deficiencies in the medical and forensic evidence, including non-production of the Appellant’s MLC and improper handling of forensic exhibits.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the State argued that the prosecution had successfully established the Appellant’s guilt through a consistent chain of circumstantial and scientific evidence. Reliance was placed on the “last seen together” circumstance, the testimony regarding the alleged extra-judicial confession, and the forensic evidence linking the blood found on the weapon and the Appellant’s clothes with the deceased. The State further contended that the Appellant had failed to explain the circumstances in which the deceased sustained fatal injuries inside the premises occupied by him.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Madhu Jain and Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed, “the two men were friends. They were drinking together. The quarrel arose without warning over something as trivial as payment for a bottle of liquor. The deceased slapped the Appellant. The Appellant, in a state of intoxication and sudden rage, picked up a brick that was lying outside and struck the deceased. There was no prior plan. The Appellant was not carrying any weapon. There was no motive to kill. There was no intention, in the legal sense of the term, to cause death, but there was knowledge, that striking a person repeatedly on the head with a brick is likely to cause death.”
The Court observed that the prosecution had successfully established the Appellant’s involvement in the death of the deceased through circumstantial, medical, and forensic evidence. The Bench noted that the deceased and the Appellant were close friends who had consumed liquor together immediately before the incident and that the evidence on record clearly established their presence together at the place of occurrence.
The Bench further found the extra-judicial confession made before the landlord to be credible and sufficiently corroborated by the recovery of the body, the blood-stained brick, and the scientific evidence on record. The Court held that the DNA profile of the blood found on the weapon of offence and the clothes of the Appellant conclusively linked him to the crime and demolished his plea of false implication.
However, the Court clarified that the central issue was not whether the Appellant caused the death of the deceased, but whether the act amounted to “murder” under Section 302 of the IPC or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Explaining the distinction between ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge,’ the Bench observed that Section 304 Part II applies where death is caused with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death. The Court relied upon settled principles laid down by the Apex Court in cases involving sudden quarrels arising in the heat of the moment without premeditation.
The Bench observed that the quarrel in the present case arose suddenly over payment for liquor between two intoxicated friends and there was no evidence of prior enmity, motive, or pre-planned assault. Referring to Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, the Court observed that the deceased had slapped the Appellant immediately before the assault, which constituted sudden provocation in the factual context of the case. According to the Court, the reaction of the Appellant was immediate and arose out of intoxication and sudden rage rather than a deliberate intention to commit murder.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction of the Appellant from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Court held that although the Appellant had knowledge that repeatedly striking the deceased on the head with a brick was likely to cause death, the material on record did not establish the intention necessary to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
Considering the absence of premeditation, the sudden quarrel between two intoxicated friends, and the surrounding circumstances of the occurrence, the Bench reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for eight years while maintaining the fine imposed by the Trial Court.
Case Title: Sanjay Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case No.: CRL.A. 622/2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Hon'ble Justice Madhu Jain
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Aishwarya Rao, Adv. Mansi Rao
Advocate for the Respondent: APP Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Adv. Divya Yadav, Adv. Lalit Luthra
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
