Death Caused by Fall During Sudden Scuffle Is Section 304 Part II When Intention to Kill Is Not Proved: Supreme Court

Case Name: Mathu alias Jagdish v. State of Uttarakhand

Citation: 2026 INSC 658

Date of Judgment/Order: 25 June 2026

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, J. and Arun Palli, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that where a sudden altercation escalates into a scuffle and the deceased dies due to injuries suffered from falling into a dry canal with a rock-bed, the case may fall under Part II of Section 304 IPC if the act was done with knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. The Court observed that the Trial Court and High Court had not specified which part of Section 304 IPC was attracted, but on the evidence, Section 304 Part II was applicable. The Court further held that the allegation that the appellant caused fatal injuries by throwing stones was not plausible where the nature and extent of head injuries were consistent with an abrupt fall into the dry canal.

Summary: The prosecution case arose from an incident dated 12.02.1997, allegedly triggered by a dispute over return of a wrist watch sold by the deceased Padam Singh Shahi to one of the accused. The disagreement escalated into a quarrel and scuffle near a dry canal, where the deceased was pushed and fell into the canal, sustaining serious head injuries and later dying in hospital. The Sessions Court convicted three accused, including Mathu alias Jagdish, under Section 304/34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine. The Uttarakhand High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. During pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, two appellants died and the appeal survived only for Mathu alias Jagdish. Examining the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, the hostile witness PW-1 and the post-mortem injuries, the Supreme Court found that the fatal injuries were more consistent with the deceased’s fall into the dry canal than with stones allegedly thrown by the appellant.

Decision: The Supreme Court maintained the conviction of Mathu alias Jagdish but treated the case as one falling under Section 304 Part II IPC. Considering that the incident occurred in 1997, nearly three decades had passed, the appellant was about 33 years old at the time of incident and was now over 60 years of age, and he had already undergone imprisonment of more than one and a half years, the Court reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment of five years to the period already undergone. Since the appellant was already on bail, his bail bond was discharged, and the criminal appeal was allowed to that limited extent.