- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mahesh Balmiki Alias Munna v. State Of M.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, along with three associates, allegedly snatched a wristwatch from a boy known to Satish (the deceased) and Harkishan. When the deceased and Harkishan requested return of the watch, the appellant asked them to come to a specified place. At that location an altercation ensued; the appellant’s associates held the deceased while the appellant inflicted a single but deep knife-stab to the deceased’s chest and also injured Harkishan. The deceased succumbed to the wound en route to the police station.
The appellant was tried in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1981, convicted under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced on 17-7-1982 to life imprisonment and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh affirmed the conviction and sentence on 30-4-1998. The present Supreme Court appeal was entertained only on the limited question of the nature of the offence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the homicide fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC—thereby warranting conversion of the conviction from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
- Whether, in view of there being a single knife-blow, the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be altered to a lesser offence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The incident fits within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC as it arose from a sudden quarrel without premeditation and without undue advantage being taken.
- Only one knife-blow was inflicted; therefore, at most an offence under Section 304 IPC is made out.
State's Arguments
- The prerequisites of Exception 4—absence of premeditation, sudden fight, and lack of undue advantage—are not satisfied.
- The surrounding circumstances demonstrate an intention to kill, justifying conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1984) 2 SCC 133; AIR 1984 SC 759 | Illustrates circumstances where a single blow led to alteration of conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC. | Cited by the appellant; the Court found the facts distinguishable and declined to apply it. |
| Ranjitsinh Chandrasinh Atodaria v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1994 SC 1060 | Another instance of conversion of a murder conviction to culpable homicide where mitigating factors existed. | Cited by the appellant; the Court noted it was merely an example and did not find it controlling. |
| Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 472 | Case where conviction under Section 302 was reduced, illustrating application of Exception 4 principles. | Cited by the appellant; similarly held not determinative of the present facts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the statutory requirements of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: absence of premeditation, occurrence in a sudden fight, heat of passion, and lack of undue advantage or cruel conduct. It found these requisites unsatisfied because the appellant:
- Pre-arranged the meeting by directing the deceased to a specific place, evidencing premeditation.
- Acted with the assistance of associates who immobilised the deceased, thereby taking undue advantage.
- Inflicted a 19 cm deep stab wound that pierced vital organs (sternum, pericardium, liver, and stomach), demonstrating cruel and lethal intent.
Addressing the “single-blow” argument, the Court reiterated that no general rule exempts a single blow from attracting Section 302 IPC. Determination depends on weapon used, part of body targeted, depth and seriousness of the injury, and surrounding circumstances. Here, the blow was delivered to a vital area while the victim was restrained, making the inference of intent—or at least knowledge of probable fatality—inescapable.
Consequently, the Court concluded that Exception 4 was inapplicable and that the appellant’s conduct satisfied the requisites of murder under Section 300 IPC.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The convictions under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and the corresponding sentences imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court stand confirmed.
Implications: The decision reinforces that (i) premeditated conduct coupled with a lethal attack, even if constituting a single blow, can amount to murder, and (ii) Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC will not apply where the offender orchestrates the encounter, restrains the victim through accomplices, or acts with manifest lethal intent. No new legal principle was created; the judgment applies established criteria to the specific facts.
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.— Leave is granted limited to the question of nature of offence.
2. The appellant along with two others was tried for committing the murder of one Satish (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and causing injuries with a knife to Harkishan and was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and three years' rigorous imprisonment for the said offences by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1981 on 17-7-1982. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1982 confirmed his conviction under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and sentence for the said offences and dismissed his appeal on 30-4-1998. Against the judgment and order of the High Court, he is in appeal before this Court.
3. Dr T.N Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has urged that it is a case falling under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and, in any event, as the appellant had given only a single blow with a knife, he ought not to have been convicted under Section 302 IPC; his conviction could only be under Section 304 IPC.
4. Mr Anoop Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State argued that none of the requirements of Exception 4 are present and the circumstances clearly suggest that the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased, therefore, he was rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC.
5. Apropos the contentions, we have perused the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. It appears that the appellant and three others snatched the wristwatch of a boy known to the deceased and Harkishan. At the request of that boy, they asked the appellant and his associates to return the watch. The appellant told the deceased and Harkishan to come to some specified place. On reaching there, they had an exchange of hot words and then Naresh, Pappu and Laxman caught hold of the deceased and the appellant gave a knife-blow on the chest of the deceased as a result of which he fell down. The appellant also inflicted injuries with the knife on Harkishan who rushed to save the deceased. While the deceased was being taken to the police station, he succumbed to the injuries. Dr D.S Badkur (PW 5), who conducted post-mortem on the person of the deceased, found the following injuries:
“Stab wound 1.5 × 0.5 cm vertical situated on interior aspect of chest on left border of sternum and at the sterno-costal joint of 6th and 7th rib, sternum cut and fracture in arms 9.2 area, truck (sic) of the wound going through and through and sternum, pericandium (pericardium); anterior and posterior wall of right vertical (It) dome of disphram (diaphragm), left lobe of liver cardiac and of stomach perforated total depth of wound was 19 cm and direction of truck (sic) was going downwards posteriorly and towards abdominal cavity pericardial (illega) (iliac) full of blood, abdominal cavity full of blood, middle media sternum ecchy mosed (ecchymosis) around wound track. Stomach contents coming out in peritoneum cavity.”
6. PW 5 stated that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the said wound which could have been caused by a sharp-edged cutting weapon.
7. Now Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is in the following terms:
“Exception 4.—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's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.”
The requirements of this exception are:
(a) without premeditation in a sudden fight;
(b) in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel;
(c) the offender has not taken undue advantage; and
(d) the offender has not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Where these requirements are satisfied, culpable homicide would not be murder.
8. On the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the fatal injury was inflicted without premeditation. Indeed, the appellant asked the deceased to come to a particular place to receive the watch. There, three associates of the appellant caught hold of the deceased and the appellant gave the fatal blow with the knife. The stab wound was given on the chest on the left side of the sternum between the costal joint of the 6th and 7th ribs and both the ribs have been fractured. It appears that truck of the wound had gone through the sternum, pericardium anterior and posterior after passing the ribs and thereafter entered the liver and perforated a portion of the stomach. Total depth of the wound was 19 cm and the direction of truck (sic) was going downwards posteriorly. The impact of the single blow with the knife has been disastrous. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has not taken undue advantage or not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In our view, Exception 4 has, therefore, no application on the facts of this case.
9. Adverting to the contention of a single blow, it may be pointed out that there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is not attracted. A single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction under Section 302 IPC, in some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other cases under Section 326 IPC. The question with regard to the nature of offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused and the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence committed by him. In the instant case, the deceased was disabled from saving himself because he was held by the associates of the appellant who inflicted though a single yet a fatal blow of the description noted above. These facts clearly establish that the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. In any event, he can safely be attributed the knowledge that the knife-blow given by him was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
10. Dr Singh invited our attention to the following judgments of this Court in Tholan v. State of T.N (1984) 2 SCC 133, AIR 1984 SC 759, Ranjitsinh Chandrasinh Atodaria v. State of Gujarat AIR 1994 SC 1060 and Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp (3) SCC 472 for altering the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC. A perusal of these judgments shows that these are instances of application of the aforementioned principles. We do not, therefore, consider it necessary to refer to them in detail.
11. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the appellant had rightly been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 324 IPC by the trial court and the High Court. We find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Alert