A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain, has modified the conviction of two brothers from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court determined that a 2012 stabbing incident, sparked by a refusal to provide a cigarette, occurred without premeditation during a “sudden fight,” thereby attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The incident took place on August 29, 2012, at approximately 10:30 A.M. near a bus stand at Prem Nagar, Lal Kuan. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Pradeep, approached the complainant (Rajesh) and his friends, including the deceased (Neeraj), to demand a cigarette. When the request was refused, a scuffle broke out. Pradeep briefly left the scene, fetched a kitchen knife from “Babban Dhaba,” and returned to the spot.
According to the initial police report, Pradeep’s brother, Sanjay, arrived at the scene, allegedly caught hold of Neeraj from behind, and exhorted Pradeep to stab him. Neeraj sustained a single stab wound to the left side of his chest and was declared “brought dead” at the Trauma Centre, AIIMS. In 2024, the Trial Court convicted both brothers under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Appellants argued that there was no prior enmity or planning. They highlighted that the altercation was spontaneous and escalated into a “sudden fight” in the heat of passion. It was further argued that independent witnesses had failed to attribute any specific role to Sanjay, with some testifying that he was not even present at the time of the stabbing. The defense maintained that a single blow in such circumstances indicated a lack of intention to murder.
The State’s Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) defended the murder conviction, asserting that the left side of the chest is a vital organ. The State argued that a 6.2 cm deep wound demonstrated an intention to cause bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The prosecution also invoked the principle of “transfer of malice” under Section 301 IPC, arguing that the liability for murder remains even if the victim was not the original target.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court examined whether the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The Bench noted that four specific ingredients must be met: the act must be committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender taking undue advantage.
On the issue of premeditation, the Court observed:
“The altercation arose spontaneously over a trivial demand for a cigarette… Pradeep did not arrive at the spot armed. Post the scuffle, he went to the dhaba and returned with a kitchen knife belonging to Babban Singh (PW-4), which was lying on the table. The knife was not brought from home or kept ready.”
Regarding the nature of the assault, the Court noted:
“A single blow in the course of a scuffle, without repeated or sustained assault, does not by itself mean that the offender took undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The deceased Neeraj was not restrained or rendered helpless before being stabbed.”
The Court also scrutinized the role of Sanjay under Section 34 IPC, finding that independent witnesses did not support the claim that he held the deceased. The Bench emphasized that as a rule of joint liability, the liability of a co-accused cannot exceed that of the principal offender. The Court concluded that the offence fell under Section 304 Part II IPC, as there was knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, but no clear intention to cause death or a specific fatal injury.
The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), noting that a “sudden fight” involves mutual provocation where it is difficult to determine the precise share of blame.
The Decision
The High Court set aside the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and convicted the appellants under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC.
Noting that the appellants had been in custody for more than seven years, Justice Madhu Jain stated:
“Considering the nature of the offence as found by this Court, the period of sentence already undergone, and the absence of aggravating factors, it is held that a sentence of the period already undergone would be adequate and appropriate.”
The sentence was modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone, and the Court directed that both appellants be released forthwith. The fine imposed by the Trial Court and the compensation to the deceased’s family were maintained.
Case Details
- Case Title: Sanjay v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (and connected appeal)
- Case Number: CRL.A. 48/2025 & CRL.A. 65/2025
- Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain
- Date: April 8, 2026
