As the injuries inflicted on the deceased in the sudden fight between the deceased and the accused party. There was no premeditation. One injury was caused to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicates that the appellant has not taken undue advantage of the deceased. The 4 manner the occurrence and the injury inflicted on the deceased attract Exception 4 to Section 300. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant is modified under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is modified as conviction Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2301 OF 2009
BHAGIRATH …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI,J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2007 in and
by which the High Court has affirmed the conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 IPC and also the life imprisonment
imposed upon him.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2005 at about
10.00 p.m. the deceased-Bherulal was surrounded by the appellantBhagirath
(armed with farsi) and other accused persons (since
acquitted) viz. Mangu, Sangita Bai, Suma Bai and Ramkunwar. In
the wordy quarrel between the deceased and the appellant-accused
Bhagirath is said to have inflicted the farsi blow on the right
side of skull near ear. When PW-6 (Ramchandra) tried to save the
deceased, he also sustained injuries on his right hand. Further,
case of the prosecution is that all other accused (since
acquitted) also inflicted injuries on the deceased-Bherulal. On
completion of investigation, the appellant-accused and other
2
accused were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections
148/325/302 read with 149 IPC.
3. Relying upon the evidence of injured eye witness (PW-6),
the Trial Court has convicted the appellant-accused under
Section 302 IPC and other accused under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo life
imprisonment. For the conviction under Section 325 read with
Section 149 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one
year.
4. In the appeal before the High Court, the High Court
confirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused and also
sentence of imprisonment as aforesaid. So far as the other coaccused
are concerned, the High Court acquitted all of them
holding that the charges against them have not been established
beyond reasonable doubt.
5. We have heard Mr. P.C. Agarwal, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as Ms. Swarupama
Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of
Madhya Pradesh, and also perused the impugned judgment and the
materials on record.
6. The case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PW-6
(Ramchandra), an injured eye witness, who has deposed about
quarrel between the deceased-Bherulal and the accused party. PW-6
has also spoken about the infliction of farsi blow by the
appellant-Bhagirath on the right side of the head near the ear of
the deceased. When PW-6 tried to rescue the deceased-Bherulal,
PW-6 (Ramchandra) also sustained injuries on his right hand. PW-6
3
was also injured in the occurrence is supported by the medical
evidence and evidence of PW-2 (Dr. C.S. Gangrade). PW-6 being
injured eye witness, his evidence stands on higher footing.
Presence of injuries on the person of PW-6 lends assurance to his
testimony (See: Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. reported in (2010)
10 SCC 259 ). We do not find any convincing reason to disbelieve
the testimony of injured eye witness(PW-6).
7. The High Court acquitted all the other accused, since fatal
blow is attributed to the appellant-accused. The question falling
for consideration is to the nature of the offence. As pointed out
earlier, the occurrence was at about 10.00 p.m., when there was
wordy quarrel between the accused party and the deceased –
Bherulal that there was a quarrel between them is established
from the evidence of PW-6 also. In the quarrel, the appellantaccused
has inflicted injuries on the right side of the head of
the deceased measuring 15×2 ½ x 3 c.m. Though there was another
injury found on the deceased it was one contusion measuring 10×2
cm on lower portion of right neck. The fourth exception to
Section 300 IPC deals with death committed in sudden fight
without premeditation. The sudden fight implies the absence of
premeditation. Even as per the evidence of PW-6, there was a
wordy quarrel and in that quarrel the appellant inflicted farsi
blow on the head of the deceased. As the injuries inflicted on
the deceased in the sudden fight between the deceased and the
accused party. There was no premeditation. One injury was caused
to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicates that
the appellant has not taken undue advantage of the deceased. The
4
manner the occurrence and the injury inflicted on the deceased
attract Exception 4 to Section 300. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant is
modified under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the sentence is reduced
to the period already undergone.
8. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section
302 IPC is modified as conviction Section 304 Part-I IPC and
sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him. The appellant is ordered to be released
forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case.
9. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
……………………..J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
…………………….J.
[INDIRA BANERJEE]
NEW DELHI
23RD OCTOBER, 2018