Randhir Singh Alias Dhire v.

State Of Punjab
(1981)

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was a college student and there

was no premeditation. It was further held that the appellant must have the

knowledge that his injury is likely to cause death. Hence his offence falls

under the category of Section 304 Part II of IPC.

Manjeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2014) 

The accused was not held guilty under Section 302 but under Section 304
(Part II) of IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a
fine of Rs 5,500/-. The Court also affirmed conviction and sentences for the
offence under Section 324, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act passed by the
Trial Court.

 Alteration of charges from Section 302 to Section 304 (II): 

Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1999)

 Exceeded right of private defence under Section 304 (Part I):  
The IPC guarantees the right of private defence from Section 96 to Section
106. However, if an act exceeds the right of private defence, it will attract
convictions under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC.

Furthermore, the right to self-defence cannot be used as a defence in the

Court of Law if it exceeds certain quanta.
Suresh Singh v. State of Haryana (1999)
The appellants killed Mahipal by giving blows to different body parts. The
accused were also injured but to a minimum extent compared to the
deceased.

Hence it was held that the accused persons had exceeded the right of private
defence. Charges of all the accused were altered to Section 304 (Part I).

The essential ingredients of Section 304 of IPC are:

 There must be a death caused to an individual in question.

 The death caused either should be with both intention and
knowledge or with knowledge but without intention.
 The punishment of the offence is decided accordingly.