In CRL.A. 839/2023-DEL HC- Absence of any previous animosity between accused or deceased and the fact that injuries were inflicted in sudden fight in heat of passion, brings case within scope of Exception 4 to Sec 300 IPC: Delhi HC
Justices Suresh Kumar Kait & Shalinder Kaur [22-12-2023]

Read Order: MANISH @ GANJA v. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 2, 2024: The Delhi High Court has altered the conviction of a murder accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part (I) IPC as the occurrence of stabbing the deceased with knife by the appellant took place in the course of sudden quarrel, which was in no manner pre-mediated and previous animosity didn’t exist between the appellant or deceased.

The appeal had been preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 383 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judges, Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs 20,000 .

The facts of the case suggested that a call regarding a quarrel was received at Police Station Patel Nagar and it was handed over to SI Ganesh Yadav for necessary action. He along with Constables reached at the spot and from there, he gave intimation on telephone to the Investigating Officer (I.O.) Inspector Pawan Singh Rana that a person namely Kadedin Singh ha been stabbed and he was being taken to the hospital. On receipt of the said information, Inspector Pawan Singh Rana along with his staff reached the spot and found that the injured was being taken by some persons to the hospital in a private car.

He inspected the spot and found blood stains at different places. The IO could not find any eye-witness at the spot. He came to know that Manish @ Ganja and JCL B ran away from the spot after inflicting injuries with a knife to the injured Karedin. IO collected the blood samples and other exhibits from the spot. In the meantime, SI telephonically informed the IO about the death of injured at RML Hospital.

Both Manish @ Ganja and JCL B fled away from the spot. In the meanwhile, his father’s acquaintances and other public persons came at the spot. His mother got his father admitted in the RML hospital with the help of police where he was declared dead. Akash’s statement was recorded by the IO in question-answer form. On the basis of the said statement, present FIR was registered under Sections 302/34 IPC.

It was the appellant’s case that in the entire roster of witnesses prepared by the prosecution, not even a single witness from the public was present at the spot including public witness Ravi was cited by the I.O. It was submitted that the Trial court failed to take into notice that the other two eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence, PW-18 Bishamber and PW-23 Jasbir Singh had not supported the prosecution which seriously crumpled the prosecution case. It was submitted that the weapon of offence i.e. the knife used to commit the said murder was never recovered.

The Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait & Justice Shalinder Kaur found force in the submission made by the appellant as two independent eye witnesses were declared hostile and other public witnesses from the spot of incident, specifically Ravi were not introduced as prosecution witnesses by the IO. This generated a doubt on the prosecution’s case and made it unbelievable.


Referring to R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala , the Bench said, “It is to be noted that the law is settled that in the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, the golden rule is evidences to be weighed and not counted.”

The Bench opined that if the testimony of eye witnesses PW-5 Akash and PW-14 Neetu, being son and wife respectively of the deceased was cogent and reliable, the non-examination of other public witnesses from the place of occurrence or that other eye witnesses PW-18 Bishambar and PW-22 Jasbir Singh were declared hostile and had not completely supported the case of the prosecution, would not adversely affect the prosecution case.

“Evidence of a witness is not to be disbelieved only because the witness is related to the deceased. It is to be confirmed whether the witness was present or not at the spot and whether is truthful or not, their evidence is not free from doubt. At the outset, their presence at crime scene, when the actual incident has occurred is uncertain, therefore, their testimony is unreliable, which cannot be made basis for conviction of appellant”, the Bench said.

It was further observed that the conduct of the family members of the deceased who had first preferred to shift the injured to the hospital from the spot for saving his life was natural and did not give rise to any suspicion. Therefore, the very fact that the eye-witnesses being the family members did not immediately inform the police officials when they arrived at the spot about the incident didnot discredit their testimonies.

As per the Bench, the entire sequence of the incidence did not generate any doubt that PW-5 had falsely named the appellant in his statement as FIR was promptly lodged. The appellant had also failed to point out any phenomenal contradictions according to the actuality raising serious doubts on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, which was further supported with the post-mortem report of the deceased.

The High Court was of the opinion that the doctrine relating to provocation depends upon the fact that it causes a sudden and temporary loss of self control and such provocation must be both grave and sudden, so as to earn the benefit of the provision of Exception I of Section 300 IPC. “On scrutiny of the entire evidences, it is no where established that the deceased in any manner i.e. by way of gestures, words or creating certain situation that had caused sudden and grave provocation to the appellant so as to bring his action under this Exception. The said exception deals with cases, where there is total deprivation of self control”, the Bench added.

The occurrence of stabbing the deceased with knife by appellant took place in the course of sudden quarrel, which was in no manner pre-mediated. There was as such no intention on part of the appellant to kill, the intention probably was to cause bodily injury in the abdomen and one in the chest.

However, the Bench observed that he had the knowledge that three stab injuries being caused by him with knife in the abdomen could result in the death of the deceased. In the absence of any previous animosity between the appellant or deceased & family members as the injuries were inflicted in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, thereby, brings the case within the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the Bench added.

Upon analysing the testimony of witnesses and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part (I) IPC.

The Bench concluded the matter by ordering, “We award a sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.”