The Sickle, the Lathi and the Fifteen-Minute Interval
At about 7:20 p.m. on 4 September, Mahesh (32) and Dinesh (46), neighbours, quarrelled over a water hose in their village lane. Dinesh abused and slapped Mahesh. Mahesh went to his house about 60 metres away, returned roughly fifteen minutes later carrying a sickle, and challenged Dinesh. Dinesh picked up a lathi lying in his courtyard and struck Mahesh once on the left shoulder. In the scuffle Dinesh suffered one incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the outer right forearm, and Mahesh then brought the sickle down on Dinesh's head. Dinesh collapsed, was taken to the CHC, referred to the district hospital, and died on 7 September from a depressed comminuted fracture with underlying contusion. The post-mortem notes a single cranial injury, no other injury on the deceased's body, and blood alcohol of 92 mg/100 ml. Two witnesses say Mahesh shouted that he would kill Dinesh before leaving home; a third says Dinesh was laughing and saying 'maar le' as Mahesh advanced. Mahesh has one bruise on the shoulder. The charge-sheet proposes Section 103(1) BNS (murder).
1. Which offence is made out: murder under Section 103(1) BNS or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105? Examine the fourth exception to Section 101 and the right of private defence.
Read the worked answer
Step 1: Who was the aggressor? The right of private defence under Sections 34-44 BNS belongs to a person facing a reasonable apprehension of harm; it is not available to a person who himself seeks the fight. Mahesh was slapped, walked 60 metres home, waited about fifteen minutes, took a sickle and returned. That sequence converts a street quarrel into an armed confrontation initiated by Mahesh. Dinesh's single lathi blow on the shoulder was therefore an act in private defence, and Mahesh cannot plead private defence against it.
Step 2: Does the fourth exception to Section 101 apply? The exception requires a sudden fight, absence of premeditation, and no undue advantage or cruelty. The interval, the distance walked and the deliberate selection of a lethal weapon are the classic indicia of premeditation; the fight was no longer sudden when Mahesh returned. The threat shouted before leaving supplies the intention. The first exception (grave and sudden provocation) also fails, because Mahesh had time to cool and instead armed himself; a slap and abuse are not, in law, a deprivation of self-control.
Step 3: The invitation. Dinesh's 'maar le' is not consent. Consent is no defence to the causing of death, and words spoken in bravado do not license a lethal blow.
Conclusion. A sickle blow to the head is an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Section 103(1) BNS is made out and Section 105 is not, though the single injury and the absence of motive may be pressed in mitigation on sentence.
2. Assess the evidentiary significance of the single cranial injury, the wound on the deceased's forearm and the blood alcohol. How will you establish the sequence of the assault?
Read the worked answer
Defensive wound. An incised wound on the outer right forearm is a typical warding-off injury. It supports the version that Dinesh was holding the lathi across his body and that his blow preceded the fatal one, and it shows Mahesh was the person attacking with the edged weapon.
Single cranial injury. One blow is routinely pressed as proof of no intention to kill. It does not help here for three reasons: the weapon is a heavy sickle, the target was the head, and the deceased had no other injury, which suggests he was not the continuing aggressor when the blow landed but was retreating or already disabled. A single deliberate blow on a vital part is enough for the clause covering injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Blood alcohol of 92 mg/100 ml. This is a moderate level, not gross intoxication. It is relevant only to the deceased's demeanour and to the plausibility of his shouting the challenge. It cannot be used to justify the killing, and a prosecutor should not build a theory on it.
Proving sequence at trial: the site plan with the positions of the sickle and the lathi; bloodstain pattern in the lane; seizure memos and the FSL report on the weapon; the history recorded at the CHC when the deceased was brought in; and the credit of the three witnesses, especially the one who heard the threat, whose testimony establishes premeditation and defeats the sudden-fight plea.
3. Draft the operative part of the charge and state where the burden of proof lies, and how the prosecution should meet a plea of private defence.
Read the worked answer
Charge (draft). 'That you, Mahesh, on 4 September at about 7:35 p.m. in the lane in front of the house of Dinesh, voluntarily caused the death of Dinesh by inflicting a blow with a sickle on his head, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and within the cognizance of this Court.' The particulars that must appear are the date, time, place, weapon, part of the body and the name of the deceased. The order framing the charge should record that the plea of the fourth exception was considered and rejected, so that the appellate court can see the reasoning.
Burden. The prosecution must prove the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. When an accused raises private defence, he must establish it on a preponderance of probabilities, and once it is raised the prosecution must dispel it. Here the prosecution need not rely on the defence at all: its own evidence, the return with the sickle and the shouted threat, establishes that Mahesh was the aggressor and that Dinesh's lathi blow was lawful.
Strategy. Build the case on premeditation and the sequence, not on the number of injuries. If the trial court nevertheless accepts the fourth exception, the fallback is conviction under Section 105 BNS, and the charge should be framed so that this alternative remains open on the same facts.