1. Appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for murder and attempted murder during sudden quarrel. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 805
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P.Singh : N.Santosh Hegde
Mukesh
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No. : 975 of 2001
Date of Decision : 8/13/02
Culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation during a sudden fight in the heat of passion, provided the offender takes no undue advantage and does not act in a cruel or unusual manner, as per Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 300 (Exception 4), 302 and 304 Part I - Murder versus Culpable Homicide - Sudden quarrel - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner - Where injuries are caused during such a fight and the offender does not continue the attack after the victim falls, the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is available. (Paras 4, 5 and 7)
(B) Indian Penal Code - Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Absence of motive - Where a fight erupts suddenly between strangers and there is no motive to kill, an injury inflicted during such an encounter cannot be treated as having been caused with an intention to kill, and conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and a companion were at a hotel for dinner where a sudden quarrel erupted between them and two other individuals, who were total strangers, regarding the preference in the service of food. During the fight, the appellant used a knife to stab one individual, who subsequently died, and another individual, who sustained injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and seven years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the injuries were grievous but were caused during a sudden fight without any motive. It was noted that once the deceased fell, the appellant did not inflict any further injuries, indicating that he did not act in a cruel or unusual manner nor took undue advantage. Consequently, the act falls within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. Furthermore, given the absence of motive and the nature of the incident, the intention to kill the surviving injured person was not established.
Issues: Whether the act of the appellant amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), and whether the injury to the other victim was an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: If an offense is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, and the offender does not act in a cruel manner or take undue advantage (e.g., by continuing to attack a fallen victim), the offense is downgraded from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. In the absence of motive, injuries caused during such a sudden brawl do not satisfy the intent required for a conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Result: Appeal allowed; sentence modified from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part I IPC with 7 years rigorous imprisonment, and from Section 307 IPC to 326 IPC with 5 years rigorous imprisonment, to run concurrently.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued sudden fight without premeditation; State contended grievous injuries showed knowledge of causing death. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Court noted sudden fight without motive, no further attack after deceased fell, injuries grievous but not cruel or unusual. (Para 7 )
4. Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC applies when sudden fight without premeditation, no undue advantage or cruel act. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction under Section 302 modified to Section 304 Part I, and under Section 307 to Section 326; sentences concurrent. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Does a sudden quarrel without premeditation and without undue advantage attract Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC?
Yes, if the offender did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner, and after the victim fell no further attack. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
7. Can a murder conviction be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I?
Yes, when the killing occurs in a sudden fight without premeditation and the accused did not act cruelly or take undue advantage. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. What is the appropriate conviction for causing grievous hurt with a deadly weapon in a sudden fight without intention to kill?
It may be under Section 326 IPC rather than Section 307 IPC if the injury was not inflicted with intention to kill. (Para 7 , 8 )
JUDGMENT
N.SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
(1) THE appellant along with his lady friend, Jyoti was charged under sections 302 and 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC for having committed the murder of one Ramkaran Mishra and also for inflicting injuries on one Narendra Kumar, PW2 on 26.6.1995 between 8.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. at Indore. Learned additional sessions judge, Indore found the said Jyoti not guilty of the offence alleged against her hence acquitted her, while the appellant was found guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC hence sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for having committed the murder of said Ramkaran Mishra. He also found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 307 IPC and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for having caused injuries with the intention to cause death of Narendra Kumar, PW2.
(2) THE appellants appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh having failed he is before us in this appeal by leave. However, it should be noticed that on 18.9.2001 leave was granted limited to the question of nature of the offence only.
(3) THE prosecution case briefly is that on 26th of June, 1995, the appellant and his lady friend, Jyoti had gone to the Hotel Dhariwal at Sikh Mohalla, Indore for having their dinner. At that time it is stated that the appellant had consumed alcohol. There an unintended quarrel between the appellant on one hand and Narendra Kumar, PW2 and Ramkaran Mishra, the deceased on the other started in regard to the preference in service of food to them. Consequent of which the prosecution alleges that the appellant whipped out a knife stabbed on PW2 on the left scapular region causing bleeding injury. Subsequently, he stabbed Ramkaran Mishra in his upper arm, chest as well as his abdomen and consequent to which Ramkaran Mishra dropped dead. PW7 who examined PW2 found an incised wound 3 and 4 cms. on left scapular region and in the deceased, PW8 who conducted the post mortem, inter alia, found the following injuries.
"3. One cut wound on the left upper portion of the arm below the elbow on the bottom of the size of 5x2, 5x3 cm
4. One inserted wound in the chest from the front portion at 4 cm. from the nipple and on the upper portion oblique of 3 x 1.5 cm. size. Its upper edge was narrow and was spread over of 0.5 cm. on the lower portion. The lower edge of it was comparatively wide and was lacerated with bluish colour. Whereas other edges of this wound were in clearly cut position. This injury has been sustained in the large artery in the portion of the chest on the outer side and was deep in the cavern upto the inner side of the chest. In the large artery the size of this wound was 0.5 x 0.3 cm. In both the caverns blood was filled, which on the left side was upto 500 ml. And in the right side upto 250 ml., out of which there was some clots of blood. The whole depth of this wound was 8.5 cm. and this injury was oblique injury from outer side to the inner side.
5. One inserted wound on the left side 16 cm. below the exela on the lower bottom in the midst in oblique condition of the size of 3 x 8 cm. was present. The upper portion of this was narrow and outer portion of this was comparatively wider. The wider edge was bluish colour and was lacerated. The edges of this wound were appeared to be clearly cut. This injury was sustained in the abdomen in the left side and has crossed the lever, and in the lever the size of this injury was 1.8 x 0.8 cm. which by going inner side had become narrower. In the abdomen cavern 50 ml. blood was present, out of which some were in the frozen clots of the blood.
(4) SHRI Ranjan Mukherjee, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant contended before us that assuming that the prosecution has established the incident as put forward by it and assuming injuries suffered by the deceased and PW2 are as alleged by the prosecution is true. Even then according to the learned counsel act of the accu
