Allahabad HC Alters Murder Conviction Of Family Members For Killing Man Who 'Attempted' To Rape Their Daughter
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday altered the conviction of 4 family members from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, observing that the incident occurred in the heat of passion without premeditation as the deceased attempted to rape the daughter/sister of the accused persons.
A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay thus modified the sentence from Life Imprisonment to the period already undergone by them after concluding that the matter fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC [sentence provided under Section 304 (Part-I)/149 IPC].
Briefly put, as per the prosecution's case, on 8 July, 2016, the deceased (Vishal Singh) was murdered by the appellants at their residence due to a dispute regarding the money lent by the deceased to the accused family.
When he demanded it back, he was called to their house, where he was shot and assaulted with sharp weapons.
On the other hand, it was the case of the accused-appellants that the incident occurred without any premeditation and in the heat of passion when the deceased was attempting to rape the daughter of accused no. 1 (Mahesh Singh).
It was their stance that the deceased forcibly grabbed the daughter, dragged her inside the room, slammed her to the floor and tried to commit rape with her. Hearing her cries, the family members came, and people of the neighbourhood arrived at the scene and in the spur of the moment, the incident occurred.
Considering both the versions, the bench examined the facts and evidence of the case to note that it was indeed a case of sudden altercation between the parties, which resulted in the fatal mishap.
The bench noted that Aarti and Vitana Devi (appellants no. 2 & 3) had been assigned the role of catching hold, and the appellant Shivam Singh (appellant no. 4) and Amit Singh had assaulted the deceased with 'banka' as the deceased was attempting to commit rape with the daughter/sister of the appellants.
"...this goes to show that in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel followed by a scuffle the accused persons had caused injuries on the deceased. Thus, in our view, in the present case it cannot be said that the appellants had premeditation to commit murder of the deceased", the bench observed.
The court also relied upon a catena of Supreme Court judgments, including Surinder Kumar vs Union Territory, Chandigarh 1989 and Ghapoo Yadav v. State of MP 2003, concerning the issue as to whether the fight was sudden and whether the offenders took any undue advantage.
The division bench reasoned that if the intent was to murder the deceased, they would not have done so at their own house. The appellants did not take any undue advantage nor act in a cruel or unusual manner, the Court further noted.
Thus, on overall scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court opined that the offence would be one punishable under Section 304 (Part-I)/149 of the IPC in view of the fact that the injuries were found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death but same were caused in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, hence the instant case falls under the Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.
The criminal appeals were partly allowed to the extent that instead of Section 302/149 IPC, the appellants shall stand convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 (Part-I)/149 IPC.
They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period already undergone by them.
Case title - Mahesh Singh and 3 others vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 248
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 248