Overt Act Occasioned In Altercation Without Any Pre-Meditation: Supreme Court Modifies Conviction Of Accused
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the appellant accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
The Supreme Court has modified the conviction of an accused in a case of hit and run where an injured man died in an altercation after noting that the one blow inflicted on the head of the deceased resulted in his death after five days and the overt act was without any pre-meditation and was occasioned in an altercation.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the appellant, who is the sole accused, out of the three, convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The other two accused were acquitted.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “The one blow inflicted on the head of the deceased resulted in his death, that too after five days, which overt act was without any pre-meditation and was occasioned in an altercation where the group comprising the deceased were the aggressors and the offenderappellant herein could be said to have acted under sudden provocation, thus being deprived of the power of self-control.”
Advocate Siddhi Gupta represented the Appellant while AAG Mohd Irshad represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The deceased was riding a motorcycle on which his father was travelling pillion. The brother of the deceased was also riding a bike, and the three proceeded to a common destination. At a crossing, they saw a three wheeler colliding with a scooter and the rider of the scooter falling down. The offending vehicle sped away while the father and sons approached the fallen scooterist, who told them that he had escaped without any injuries. One of their known acquaintance also reached the spot and together, they went after the vehicle and detected it at the crime scene.
It was the prosecution’s case that while an altercation was going on, the appellant herein picked up an iron rod from his vehicle and hit the deceased on the head. The three accused, who were in the three-wheeler, sped away and the injured was taken to the hospital. An F.I.R. was registered only after five days when the victim succumbed to the injury.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that there was no motive alleged on the accused and no premeditation of the accused was found. The accused were travelling in a vehicle which hit the scooterist and sped away. It was the scooterist, accompanied by four others, one of whom was the deceased, who chased the offending vehicle.
It was noted that the father of the deceased and the scooterist who had been hit did not think it fit to approach the police and took law into their own hands, while pursuing the offending vehicle which was involved in a hit and run and confronting its occupants. It was in the course of such altercation that the blow was inflicted on the head of the accused, resulting in an injury which caused his death.
As per the Bench, there was no pre-meditation, and it was the deceased and the persons along with him who chased and confronted the accused. In the background of the altercation and the heated arguments, the accused appellant picked up an iron rod and hit the deceased.
“There cannot be any intention to cause death alleged but there is definitely an intention to cause bodily injury which resulted in the death. We say this, since the assailants, including the deceased, were not armed and in the midst of a wordy altercation, the accused took out an iron rod and hit one of the assailants on the head; a vital part of the body. Hence, culpability under Section 299 of the I.P.C. though attracted, it does not result in a finding under Section 300 since it falls under Exception 1”, the Bench said.
The Apex Court held that the offence has to be found to be one under Section 304 of the I.P.C. being culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, under Part I of Section 304 of the I.P.C., since the bodily injury deliberately inflicted was likely to cause death, the Bench modified the conviction to be one under Section 304 Part I.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “...the totality of the circumstances based on the evidence led, we are of the opinion that the sentence has to be of 7 years rigorous imprisonment. The fine imposed and the default sentence shall remain untouched. The appellant, if on bail, shall surrender within a period of two months before the jurisdictional Court, if he has not already completed seven years in jail.”
Cause Title: Ravinder Kumar @ Raju v. State of Punjab [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 396)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Siddhi Gupta, AOR Ashutosh Ghade
Respondent: AAG Mohd Irshad, AOR Karan Sharma, Advocate Mohit Siwach