Fact of the case :

The beer was being served at the place of incident and the persons who participated in that beer party were friends. Hence, there was the absence of premeditation i.e. the fight took place by chance and the fight happened in a heat of passion i.e. there was no time for this fight to cool down and the parties i.e., the accused and deceased had worked themselves into a fury (violent anger) on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning.

Also, the accused had not taken any undue or unfair advantage from the fight because all the matter had been started from the party itself, therefore, Section 302 IPC (103(1) BNS) shall not be attracted.

Held : It was also observed by the court that it is a well-settled principle that motive is not an explicit requirement under IPC, it can though only help prove the case of circumstantial evidence.

It has been held that there is no hard and fast rule that in case of single injury, Section 302 of IPC (Section 103(1) of BNS) would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The nature of injury, the part of body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death with the intention of causing death or not. 

It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC (103(1) of BNS – Punishment for murder) is ruled out. It also observed that accused inflicted the blow with a weapon like knife and he inflicted the injury on the deceased on the vital part of the body, it is presumed that causing such bodily injury was likely to cause death. 

“Therefore, the case would fall under Section 304 Part I of IPC (Section 105 – Punishment for culpable homicide of BNS, 2023).”