Gauhati High Court Alters Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide Citing 'Sudden Fight' Between Accused & Deceased Over Land Dispute

The Gauhati High Court altered murder (Section 302 IPC) conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 part 1 IPC), after noting that a sudden fight without premeditation had arisen between the accused and the deceased over cultivable land thereby attracting exception-IV to Section 300 IPC. 

Exception IV states that Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

A division bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami observed,

“On considering all the above, it cannot be ascertained that the fight occurred only due to the fault of Fazar Ali or the deceased. The blame for the incident would have to be seen from all angles… The family of Fazar Ali had also been hospitalized after the incident. It would be thus unfair if the entire blame for the incident is laid only at the door of Fazar Ali and his family. There being a quarrel and a subsequent fight regarding cultivable land, we are of the view that Exception-IV to Section 300 IPC is attracted and as such, we hold that the act of Fazar Ali, in causing the death of the deceased amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”

The court said that there was nothing established/proved that the co-accused persons had shared a common object with the accused Fazar Ali to kill the deceased. There was no connection made by the prosecution with regard to the co-accused having any knowledge of the likelihood of the deceased going to be killed by accused Fazar Ali.

The court said that the incident appeared to have been caused due to a sudden altercation, though the dispute regarding land between Fazar Ali and the deceased Musa Ali had apparently been simmering for a long time.

"We do not find any evidence of there being any premeditation on the part of Fazar Ali to kill the deceased on that particular day. The attack appears to be sudden, which had erupted from a quarrel that had ensued between them on the early morning of the said date of the incident," the court said. 

It thus altered appellant Fazar Ali's conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs.10,000 in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. 

The Court was dealing with two criminal appeals arising out of a judgment passed by the sessions court. Through the first criminal appeal, the informant challenged the acquittal of six co-accused, while in the second Criminal Appeal, the appellant - Fazar Ali challenged his conviction under Section 302 IPC.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the informant i.e., the younger brother of the deceased Musa Alam, lodged an FIR stating that while the deceased and another person were ploughing land taken on lease, the accused persons attacked them with lathis and dao, causing grievous injuries, and Musa Ali died while being taken to hospital. The case arose out of a dispute regarding possession and cultivation of land between the parties.

Before the High Court, the informant contended that the evidence proved that all the co-accused were part of an unlawful assembly sharing a common object to kill the deceased and should have been convicted under Section 302 IPC. On the other hand, the appellant Fazar Ali contended that there was a land dispute, that he and his family members were also assaulted, and that he had acted in private defence.

On appreciation of evidence, the Court noted that there were material contradictions regarding the place of occurrence and possession of land, and that the incident had arisen out of a quarrel between two groups. The Court also found that there was consistent evidence only to the extent that Fazar Ali had struck the deceased with a dao, while the involvement of co-accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

In the informant's appeal, the court on the question of acquittal of co-accused, held, “…we do not find any grounds to interfere with their acquittal… their involvement in the death of the deceased has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt…"

Accordingly, the Court held, “while the acquittal of the co-accused by the learned Trial Court needs no interference, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Fazar Ali in Criminal Appeal 30/2024 is not sustainable, as Section 302 IPC is not attracted in his case.”

Appeals were disposed of. 

Case Title: Abul Basfar v. State of Assam & Ors and connected appeal. 

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 247/2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 30/2024

Click Here To Read Judgement