Delhi High Court on Conversion of Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court held that when a fatal injury is inflicted in a sudden domestic quarrel without premeditation, it falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, amounting to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court converted the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, noting the absence of intent to kill and the presence of a single stab wound inflicted in the heat of the moment.

Facts:

1. The appellant, Keshav @ Sonu, was convicted for murdering his wife, Payal, by inflicting a single knife blow during a domestic quarrel on 19 September 2019.
2. The incident occurred at their rented residence in Delhi. Their two-year-old daughter was also present.
3. Landlady (PW-2) heard Payal’s cries and saw her bleeding with a stab wound; the accused, found drunk, was still at the spot.
4. Post-mortem confirmed one penetrating wound sufficient to cause death.

Procedural History:

1. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.
2. The appellant challenged the conviction, contending absence of premeditation and arguing the act was covered under Section 304 IPC.

Issues

1. Whether the act constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
2. Whether the act was committed intentionally or in a sudden quarrel without premeditation.

Arguments

Appellant:

1. The act was sudden, committed in fit of anger under intoxication, without intent to kill.
2. Only one blow was delivered; weapon was a kitchen knife, picked up impulsively.
3. Relied on Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444 and Atul Thakur v. State of H.P. (2018) 2 SCC 496.

Respondent (State):

1. Asserted that the nature and placement of the injury showed intention to cause death.
2. Relied on Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465).

Findings

1. The quarrel was domestic and spontaneous, with no pre-planning.
2. The accused was inebriated, picked up a kitchen knife, and struck a single blow.
3. No evidence of cruelty or repeated assault.
4. The Court noted that intention cannot be presumed merely from the fatal result of a single blow.

Decision:

1. The case was held to fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC — death caused without premeditation in a sudden quarrel.
2. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and altered to Section 304 Part II IPC.
3. Sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment for 8 years, with benefit of Section 428 CrPC for time already undergone.

Legal Principles Applied:

1. Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444
2. Atul Thakur v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 496
3. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465

Conclusion

The judgment reiterates that not every homicide is murder; when the act is committed in sudden provocation or domestic heat, courts must differentiate between intention and knowledge under Section 299 and 300 IPC. The Delhi High Court demonstrated a humane and balanced approach by converting the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC.

Citation: 2025:DHC:XXXX-DB

Case: Keshav @ Sonu v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Jain

Date of Judgment: 6 November 2025

Case No.: Crl.A. 82/2025 & Crl.M.(Bail) 148/2025