Culpable homicide just isn’t homicide whether it is dedicated in a sudden struggle with out intent

Culpable murder is not murder if committed unintentionally in a sudden battle written by Prapti Kothari, a student at the Institute of Law at Nirma University



Ramlal (hereinafter referred to as “PW-1”) was the father of Lekhram and Gopal (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The Defendants Janku, Kewal and Mangal Singh were the sons of the Defendant Ghapoo Yadav. The deceased, the witnesses and the defendant belonged to the same village and there was a land dispute between them.

The deceased, the witnesses, and the accused lived in the same village and there was a conflict between them over land. The assessment of the property was carried out by the tax authorities at the suggestion of PW-1. The land of the Defendant Mangal Singh is said to have been in the custody of PW-1 and a berry tree stood over the said land. While the tree was originally owned by PW-1, it became detached from its possession after evaluation.

The PW-1 family members felled the above tree the day before the opportunity.
On the day of the incident, on September 6, 1986, the defendant Janku asked the deceased why the tree had been felled. Lekhram replied that the tree was theirs and was planted by members of their family. The deceased claimed that the tree had not been removed by him. This led to violent arguments and arguments between them. The defendants also attacked the deceased, which resulted in a broken leg.

PW-1 and Lekhram raced away from the scene of the argument and then returned with the other residents. The deceased, who was struggling for breath at the time, was taken to the Maharajpur Police Station in a manger. They sent him for diagnosis. The doctor reported 7 wounds on his body when examined properly. After that, on October 6, 1986, the deceased died at 2 a.m. after saying his last words. His dying testimony was recorded. Based on the facts, the court found the defendants guilty, and then charged them and detained them.


  1. Was the applicant responsible for the murder of the applicant under Section 302 of the Indian Criminal Code of 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC)?
  2. Whether exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is applicable?


Exception 4 to Section 300 has been granted and made applicable. Nonetheless, the applicants were convicted and a 10-year prison term and fine under Section 304 IPC, as previously imposed by the court, were served for the purpose of justice.


The Ghapoo Yadav v. State of the MP deals with the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. It was recognized that not only must the defense prove that the crime was committed in a sudden conflict in the heat without premeditation out of passion after a sudden argument in order to trigger Exception 4 to Section 300, but more importantly, it must be demonstrated that the perpetrator “has not taken improper advantage or behaved in cruel or unusual ways”.

The sudden fight must be accompanied by a sudden argument or argument. A “sudden fight” means mutual aggression on both sides. In a fight like this, the question of who is attacking and who is defending is completely irrelevant and depends on the strategies of the respective rivals. There cannot be any possibility of a sudden struggle related to the court’s direct determination that the attacker was one of the parties.

If there is enough time for the passion to dissolve, so that the accused has time to intent and the fighting takes place afterwards, the accused will disqualify the exemption from receiving benefits, as killing equates to intentional murder. It is a fact, and whether or not an argument arises must ultimately depend on the evidence on hand.

The persistence of the injuries and their existence indicate the intent of the accused complainants, but it should not be taken into account that the cause of such injuries is either cruel or abnormal because they do not benefit from exception 4 through section 300 IPC, which means that the number of injuries Injuries sustained during the incident are not a determining factor. What is crucial, however, is that the incident must have occurred suddenly and the perpetrator must have acted in a fit of anger. For example, the perpetrator must not have exploited an unfair advantage or behaved cruelly.


Therefore, after considering all the facts and circumstances, exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC was clearly relevant. This indicates that the defendant harmed the deceased in the heat of passion after a sudden argument preceded by a fight, but did not behave unfairly or unnaturally.

Comments are closed.