Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had erred in ordering that the case would fall under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC i.e. not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The Court noted that the second incident when the accused had attacked the deceased with a danda, with the deceased running towards his house for the safety of his life but was left unconscious by the accused, cannot be said to be a result of a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
“The second incident had taken place near the house of the deceased and that too after the first incident was over, everybody went to their houses and thereafter at 12:00 in the mid night the second incident had taken place in which the accused gave several blows to the deceased by “Phakadiyat” on the head, thigh etc. Therefore, the High Court has erred in observing that the case would fall under Fourth exception to Section 300 IPC,” the Supreme Court observed.
The top court then highlighted that the High Court had failed to take into consideration the grievous injuries caused to the deceased. It was observed by the Bench that the use of a danda by the accused with tremendous force clearly projected that the act of the accused cannot come under any exception provided in Section 300 of the IPC.
The top court, therefore, held that the order passed by the High Court is unsustainable, both on facts as well as on law and restored the conviction and life sentence for murder
Source: Barandbench
