IMPORTANT POINT
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 offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissing the appeals filed by the present appellants. The appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The appellant Ravindra was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Appellants Ravindra, Naresh and Shalikrao are hereinafter referred to as A-1, A-2 and A-3. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Yuvatmal had found the appellants guilty as aforenoted.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Appellant Shalik is father of appellants Ravindra and Naresh. On 13.11.1999, at about 7 p.m. appellant Naresh was going to his house and was carrying bundle of cotton/grass. The road to his house was adjacent to the house of complainant Vandana (PW1). On the way, the cotton bundle hit the roof of the complainant’s house and, therefore, husband of the complainant, Dewanand (PW 3) accosted appellant Naresh and told him that he should have been more careful while carrying the bundle of cotton and ought to have seen that no damage was done to the roof of the house of complainant. Quarrel ensued between appellant Naresh and Dewanand (PW-3) and there was exchange of words between them. Appellants Shalik and Ravindra also came to the spot of incident and started quarrelling with the husband of the complainant- Dewanand (PW3). The father-in-law of the complainant, Kisan Gedam (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) intervened to pacify the quarrel between appellants and his son Dewanand. Appellants Shalik, Ravindra and Naresh went inside their house, which was close to the spot of incident and all of them returned to the spot armed with axe, knife and gupti. All the three appellants inflicted injuries on the head and abdomen of deceased Kisan by means of those weapons. Appellants Ravindra and Naresh inflicted injuries on the hand of husband of complainant-Dewanand (PW3) with those weapons with intention to cause his death. Deceased Kisan was taken to the Hospital at Ner where he was declared dead.

After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and since the accused persons pleaded innocence trial was held.

Placing reliance on the evidence of complainant Vandana (PW-1) and Dewanand (PW-3) the trial Court held the accused persons guilty as aforenoted.

In appeal, the primary stand was that PWs 1 and 3 should not have been relied upon and in any event the provisions of Section 302 IPC are not attracted to the facts of the case. The High Court did not find any substance in the plea and upheld the conviction and sentence as afore noted. The stands taken before the High Court were re-iterated in the present appeals.

So far as the reliability of the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 are concerned their evidence is clear and cogent and though they were subjected to incisive cross examination, nothing material could be elicited to discard their evidence.

4. The main plank of the appellants’ arguments relates to applicability of section 302 IPC. It has been contended that there is no pre-meditation involved and in course of sudden quarrel the incident took place.

5. 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.

6. 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