Chenda @ Chanda Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2013, decided 27.08.2013

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case: Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2013 [arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3028 of 2012]
Decided: 27 August 2013
Bench: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Kurian Joseph (judgment by Kurian Joseph, J.)
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2013, decided 27.08.2013
Provisions: Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 299, s. 300 and s. 304 Part I and Part II (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 100, s. 101 and s. 105); Exception 4 to s. 300 (now BNS s. 101, Exception 4)

Headnote

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder · IPC s. 304 Part II (BNS s. 105) · Exception 4 to IPC s. 300: sudden fight · Single blow · Part I or Part II after Exception 4

The case, in the Court's words

The crucial aspect to be analysed in this case is whether the conduct of the appellant in inflicting the fatal blow is intentional and with knowledge or with knowledge only. [para 7]

Held

If the case falls under Exception 4, then the further inquiry should be as to whether the case falls under the first part of Section 304 or the second part [para 8]
It was held that the said Exception can be invoked if death is caused (i) without premeditation; (ii) in a sudden fight; (iii) without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner; and (iv) the fight must have been with the person killed. It was further held that all the four ingredients must be found in order to apply Exception 4. [para 13]
It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever one blow is given, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. It would depend upon the weapon used, the size of it in some cases, force with which the blow was given, part of the body on which it was given and several such relevant factors. [paras 13-14]
When and if there is intent and knowledge, then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part II. [para 14]
It is not required that the fight must be between the main accused and deceased. The fight can as well be between two parties, the deceased on one side and all the other accused on the other side. [para 16]
The next inquiry is whether the offence falls under first part of Section 304 or the second part. Having regard to the parameters indicated in Gurmukh Singh’s case (supra), the offence seems to fall under the second part. There is no evidence of motive or previous enmity. The incident has taken place on the spur of the moment. There is no evidence regarding the intention behind the fatal consequence of the blow. There was only one blow. [para 17]

Result

Thus, considering all these aspects, we are of the view that it is a fit case to alter the punishment of imprisonment for life to imprisonment for a period of 10 years with fine of Rs.50,000/-. Ordered accordingly. [para 17]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

Applies Exception 4 to s. 300 as stated in Pappu v. State of M.P. (2006) and the sentencing factors in Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009), and follows State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976).

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-105/03 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.