In this case, the court scrutinized the thin line between passion and premeditation in criminal law. The legal analysis revolves around the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to a situation where a sudden fight led to tragic consequences. The court’s interpretation of the circumstances, relationship dynamics, and the background of the incident sheds light on the complexities of criminal liability. Let’s unravel the intricacies of this legal conundrum.
Facts
- The appellant stands convicted for causing the death of Kartik Ram on 30.5.2002 at Village Bhardao Para, Chhattisgarh.
- The appellant hit the deceased with a stone on his head resulting in his death.
- The dispute between the accused and the deceased was due to the construction of a wall.
- The cause of provocation was sudden, without premeditation.
- Injuries were caused in the heat of passion, falling under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
- The appellant is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 304 Part I.
- The appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone, which is more than 18 years.
- Based on the relationship between the accused and the deceased, and the background of the incident, the appeal is allowed partly.
Also Read: Critical Analysis of Circumstantial Evidence in Arson Case
Arguments
- The appellant’s learned senior counsel, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, argued that the offence was committed without premeditation during a sudden fight in the heat of passion.
- It was contended that the act falls under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
- The appellant and the deceased are family members, and the dispute arose over the issue of raising a wall.
Also Read: Analysis of Commencement Date in Gratuity Act Amendment Case
Case Title: PARDESHI RAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.(NOW CHHATTISGARH) (2021 INSC 70)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001730-001730 / 2015
