Supreme Court Modifies Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide in Sudden Quarrel Case

The case of Nandlal vs. The State of Maharashtra is a significant legal decision in which the Supreme Court modified a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. The ruling was based on the recognition that the act was committed in a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, and in the heat of passion.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Nandlal Baviskar, and his relative Dilip Waman Baviskar had an ongoing dispute over the expenses for a common wall constructed between their properties. The dispute led to frequent quarrels between the families.

On May 16, 2006, at around 4:00 PM, a verbal altercation broke out between Dilip, his wife Sakhubai (PW-4), and the appellant. Ganesh (PW-5), the son of Dilip, called Gopichand Waman Baviskar (PW-1), who arrived with his physically disabled brother, Lakhichand (the deceased), to pacify the situation.

During the altercation, the deceased, Lakhichand, verbally abused the appellant. Angered by this, the appellant hit him with a stick. Gopichand (PW-1) retaliated by striking the appellant on the head with a stick. The appellant then left the scene and returned with a gupti (a sharp weapon), accompanied by Parshuram and his son Sanjay.

Seeing the appellant and the two accused return armed, Gopichand and Dilip ran to safety. However, due to his disability, Lakhichand was unable to escape. The appellant then stabbed him with the gupti in his left armpit, causing serious injuries that led to his death.

Trial Court and High Court Decisions

The Sessions Court convicted all three accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. However, the Bombay High Court acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Parshuram and Sanjay), ruling that they had no common intention to commit murder. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the life sentence imposed upon him.

Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

The key legal questions in the case were:

Whether the act committed by the appellant amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or could be categorized under culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Whether the appellant acted in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and without taking undue advantage.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Nandlal Baviskar)

The appellant contended that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel, and he had no prior intention of killing the deceased.
He argued that he was first assaulted by Gopichand (PW-1), which provoked his reaction.
The appellant claimed that he inflicted only a single blow with the gupti in a moment of anger.
He sought the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which allows for a lesser punishment in cases of sudden fights without premeditation.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Maharashtra)

The prosecution maintained that the appellant left the scene and later returned with a deadly weapon, indicating that the act was not spontaneous but premeditated.
The injury inflicted was fatal, as the gupti pierced through the upper arm, causing a fracture to the fourth rib and damaging the lung.
The prosecution argued that the appellant took undue advantage of the situation by attacking a physically disabled man who could not defend himself.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court examined whether the act committed by the appellant fell within the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The Court made the following key observations:

“The incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel, and there was no premeditation.”
“The appellant initially left the scene after being struck on the head but returned quickly with a weapon. The sequence of events shows that the entire incident was part of the same altercation.”
“The injury inflicted by the appellant was a single blow, which suggests that the attack was not planned but rather a reaction to the provocation.”
“Since the appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner, the case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
The appellant was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment instead of life imprisonment.
The prosecution’s failure to prove premeditation justified a lesser charge.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for criminal jurisprudence:

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies when a killing occurs in a sudden fight, without premeditation, and without undue advantage.
A single blow with a weapon does not automatically qualify as murder if it is inflicted in the heat of passion.
The burden of proving premeditation rests on the prosecution.
Sentences should be proportionate to the circumstances of the crime.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nandlal vs. The State of Maharashtra reinforces the principle that not all homicides qualify as murder. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the circumstances under which a crime is committed before determining the appropriate charge and punishment. By modifying the conviction to culpable homicide, the Court ensured a just and fair application of the law.

Petitioner Name: Nandlal.
Respondent Name: The State of Maharashtra.
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra, India.
Judgment Date: 15-03-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Nandlal vs The State of Maharas Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category