Analysis of Conviction Alteration in a Homicide Case

Delve into a detailed legal analysis by the court regarding the alteration of a homicide conviction in a recent case. The court assessed the criteria under Section 300 IPC to determine when culpable homicide should be considered murder and when it falls under exceptions. The judgment provides insights into the factors considered for modifying the conviction, emphasizing the importance of legal assessments in such cases.


  • Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court dated 27.01.2014
  • High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC
  • Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial Court
  • Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the said judgment and order
  • The Court issued a limited notice regarding altering the conviction to Section 304-I IPC.
  • The accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased.
  • The incident involved a sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased.
  • The accused pushed and crushed the deceased’s abdomen during the quarrel.
  • The appeal is focused on whether the conviction should be altered to Section 304-I IPC.
  • The cause of death of the deceased was shock from septicemia due to injuries in the small intestine.
  • The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC, which was confirmed by the High Court.
  • The defence argued that the incident took place on 08.08.2006, but treatment was sought the next day.
  • The accused’s counsel vehemently submitted that the incident date raised questions about the prosecution’s timeline.

Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election


  • the issue before the Court is whether the accused committed the murder of the deceased under Section 300 IPC
  • deciding whether the accused should be convicted under Section 302 IPC or if the conviction can be altered to Section 304-I IPC
  • referring to Section 300 IPC to determine when culpable homicide amounts to murder and when it does not
  • highlighting the criteria under Section 300 IPC for an act to be considered murder
  • mentioning the exceptions under Section 300 IPC where culpable homicide is not considered murder

Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated


  • Accused has already served 14.5 years of actual imprisonment
  • Deceased died after 2 days of incident due to septicemia
  • Case may fall under fourth exception of Section 300 IPC
  • Request to alter the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-I IPC
  • Reliance on the case of Sanjay v. State of U.P. (2016) 3 SCC 62
  • The learned trial Court correctly held that the murder committed by the accused does not fall under the fourth exception of Section 300 IPC.
  • The case is more appropriate under clause 3/4 of Section 300 IPC.
  • Both the trial Court and the High Court were justified in convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC.
  • The decision in the case of Sanjay (supra) will not greatly assist the accused in this case.
  • Based on these points, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal.

Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis


  • Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
  • The exceptions provided under Section 300 IPC include situations where the person causing harm does so without intent or premeditation in specific circumstances.
  • Provisos under Exception 4 emphasize that the act must be in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, and there should be no undue advantage or cruel behavior by the offender.
  • The determining factors for categorizing the offense as murder or not include the nature of provocation and the conduct of the offender during the altercation.
  • The evaluation of whether the provocation was sufficient to prevent the offense from being classified as murder is a matter of factual assessment.
  • The court analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case in relation to Section 300 IPC, specifically clause 4 and exception 4.
  • The court observed that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause bodily injury leading to death.
  • The court considered the fact that the deceased survived for 62 days after the incident and was in stable condition when discharged from the hospital.
  • Based on these factors, the court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-I IPC and sentenced the accused to 10 years R.I.
  • The court noted that there was no evidence of premeditation on the part of the accused and applied exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
  • The court highlighted that in cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it is immaterial which party offers provocation or commits the first assault.
  • The court concluded that the case did not fit under Section 302 IPC but could be considered under Section 304-I IPC.
  • The court also discussed the timing of the deceased’s admission to the hospital, noting a delay of 24 hours after the incident and death occurring within three days due to septicemia.
  • Accused can be said to have committed the offence under Section 304-I, IPC.
  • Case falls under exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
  • Premeditation was not present on the part of the accused.
  • Accused did not carry any weapon.
  • Quarrel started suddenly.


  • The present appeal has succeeded in part.
  • The rest of the judgment and order passed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court is hereby confirmed.
  • The appellant-accused is to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
  • The judgment and order passed convicting the appellant-accused under Section 302, IPC, is modified to convict him under Section 304-I, IPC.
  • The appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, which is 14.5 years.


Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000121-000121 / 2021

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *