Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found the case of the prosecution proved to the hilt and the guilt of the appellant well cemented and therefore convicted him Under Section 302 IPC and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment on him which has been challenged in this appeal.

15. We have heard Sri P.N. Misra learned senior counsel in support of this appeal and Miss Usha Kiran learned AGA on behalf of the State.

16. Sri P.N. Misra learned Counsel for the appellant made an endeavor to bring forth some of the discrepancies from the prosecution evidence but ultimately confined to the submission only on the nature of offence which has been committed by the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that according to the prosecution story the incident occurred all of a sudden in night at 10.20p.m. without any premeditation. He contended that the appellant met the deceased and the eyewitnesses all of a sudden at the crossing at that hour of night and the assault proceeded with an altercation and the appellant in that meleeheat of anger never intended to cause death of the deceased who had intervened in the altercations. He contended that utterances by the appellant is indicative of the fact that he never intended to cause death nor he intended to cause such bodily injury to the deceased as to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further submitted that the appellant never knew that the bodily injury inflected by him will cause the death of the deceased in all probability and therefore the offence will not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 IPC. He further submitted that in the wake of anger and anguish a single blow was given by the appellant which proved fatal and therefore, the offence against the appellant will not travel beyond 304 part II IPC. He further contended that the appellant was 19 years of age at the time of the incident and he belongs to a respectable family and had no criminal history. He further submitted that the assault was made by the appellant not to cause the death of the deceased but to keep him away from interference between him and Ashok Kumar and there was absence of any intention to cause death and therefore what can be said with certainty is that the appellant had knowledge that by his assault he can cause the death of the deceased and therefore his guilt is covered under exception 4 to Section 300 IPC He therefore submitted that the conviction Under Section 302 IPC is bad in law and instead the appellant should be convicted Under Section 304 part I IPC and be sentenced suitably.

23. In similar circumstances in the case Mahesh v. State it has been held by the Apex court as follows:

4. From persual of the evidence, we find that when the appellant arrived along with the cattle at the field there was no pre-meditation for the assault. At the spot, there was an altercation between the parties and in the sudden fight, after the deceased objected to the grazing of the cattle, when possibly hot words or even abuses were exchanged between the parties, the appellant gave a single blow with the pharsa on the head of the deceased. The statement of the appellant and the suggestions given on his behalf to the prosecution witnesses that there was an attempt to assault the deceased with a pharsa which was with the deceased does not appear to be improbable. Thus, placed as the appellant and the deceased were at the time of the occurrence, it appears to us that the appellant assaulted the deceased in that sudden fight and after giving the him one blow took to his heals. He did not cause any other injury to the deceased and therefore it cannot be said that he acted in any cruel or unusual manner. Admittedly, he did not assault PW-2 or PW-6 who were also present along with the deceased and who had also requested the appellant not to allow his cattle to graze in the field of PW-1. This fortifies our belief that the assault on the deceased was made during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation. In this fact situation, we are of the opinion that Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC is clearly attracted to the case of the appellant and the offence of which the appellant can be said to be guilty would squarely fall under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC. The trial Court, under the circumstances, was justified in convicting him for the said offence and the High Court, in our opinion, fell in error in interfering with it and that too without dispelling any of the reasons given by the trial Court. The judgment of the High Court convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302, IPC cannot be sustained and we accordingly set it aside and instead convict the appellant for the offence under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC.

25. It has further been held by the Apex court in case reported in AIR 2004 SC 4496 Prakash Chandra v. State of H.P. as follows:

6. For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage a id not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
7. The Fourth Exception of Section 300, IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, 6. For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
7. The Fourth Exception of Section 300, IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reasons and urges them to deeds which they would net otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way tier quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral pro vocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on err side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which them parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death as caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'. These aspects have been highlighted in Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat 2003 (5) Supreme 223. When the factual scenario is considered in the legal principles indicated above, the inevitable conclusion is that Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC is clearly applicable.