“One Blow Without Premeditation”: Supreme Court Modifies Life Sentence to 7 Years, Says Accused Acted “Under Sudden Provocation” in Road Rage Altercation
Kiran Raj
In a judgment confined to determining the nature of the offence arising from a fatal altercation, the Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellant from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that “there cannot be any intention to cause death alleged” and that the incident occurred in the context of a confrontation where the appellant “could be said to have acted under sudden provocation, thus being deprived of the power of self-control.”
The incident, which gave rise to the present criminal appeal, involved an altercation following a road accident. The deceased was riding a motorcycle, accompanied by his father as a pillion rider, while his brother rode on a separate motorcycle. As the group proceeded to a common destination, they witnessed a collision between a three-wheeler and a scooter. The three-wheeler sped away after the impact, and the scooterist, who escaped injury, was approached by the father and sons.
Another individual, also a scooterist and colleague of the victim of the hit-and-run, soon arrived at the scene. Both lecturers by profession, the scooterists expressed a desire to pursue the offending vehicle. The five men then followed and confronted the occupants of the three-wheeler once it was located.
The prosecution case alleged that during the ensuing altercation, the appellant picked up an iron rod from the vehicle and struck the deceased on the head. Following this act, the three-wheeler fled the scene. The injured man was immediately transported to a hospital. Initially, a Daily Diary Report (DDR) was registered based on the father’s statement, but a formal First Information Report (FIR) was filed only after five days, subsequent to the victim’s death from his injuries.
The post-mortem report confirmed that the cause of death was a single head injury, categorised as homicidal in nature. The iron rod used in the incident was recovered pursuant to a confessional statement made by the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Two other accused individuals, who had also been present in the three-wheeler, were acquitted — one by the Trial Court and the other by the Appellate Court. The State's appeal against the Trial Court's acquittal was dismissed. The present proceedings pertained solely to the appellant whose conviction and sentencing were under scrutiny.
Significantly, the Supreme Court had issued notice at the admission stage limited to the nature of the offence, namely, whether the conviction should remain under Section 302 or be modified to one under Section 304 IPC. The adjudication was thus confined to this specific aspect.
The Bench meticulously reviewed the sequence of events, focusing on the presence or absence of premeditation, the conduct of the parties involved, and the evidentiary materials submitted.
The Court observed that “there is no motive alleged on the accused nor can there be found any pre-meditation.” It recorded that the group of five, including the deceased, took it upon themselves to pursue and confront the three-wheeler involved in the earlier accident, instead of reporting the incident to the police. The Bench stated: “Despite this, they did not think it fit to approach the police and took law into their own hands.”
The confrontation occurred after the occupants of the three-wheeler were identified. The father of the deceased and one of the scooterists accused them of having struck the scooter and failing to provide assistance. The prosecution witnesses spoke only of heated verbal arguments during the incident.
The Court noted that the iron rod blow was inflicted during this exchange, without any prior planning or evidence of premeditation. The Bench held that “there cannot be any intention to cause death alleged but there is definitely an intention to cause bodily injury which resulted in the death.”
It recorded that the appellant picked up the iron rod and delivered a blow to the head — a vital part of the body — of the deceased, who was unarmed and accompanied by four others. The Court held that this action, while serious, fell under Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC due to the sudden nature of the provocation and absence of premeditation. The judgment stated: “The one blow inflicted on the head of the deceased resulted in his death, that too after five days, which overt act was without any pre-meditation and was occasioned in an altercation where the group comprising the deceased were the aggressors.”
The Court concluded that the offence was to be considered culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as defined under Section 299 IPC. It thus modified the conviction to one under Section 304 Part I IPC, noting: “The bodily injury deliberately inflicted was likely to cause death and in such circumstance, the conviction has to be modified.”
In determining the appropriate sentence, the Supreme Court considered the nature of the act, the lack of premeditation, and the fact that the deceased was among the aggressors in the confrontation. The Bench ordered a sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC. It stated: “In the totality of the circumstances based on the evidence led, we are of the opinion that the sentence has to be of 7 years rigorous imprisonment.”
The Court directed that the previously imposed fine of ₹2,000 and the default sentence of two months’ rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine would remain unaffected.
It was further directed that if the appellant was on bail, he must surrender before the jurisdictional Court within two months unless he had already served the full term of the modified sentence.
The appeal was allowed to the extent of modifying the conviction and sentence. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Ravinder Kumar @ Raju v. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 396
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5690 of 2020
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
