Judgment :

In the light of the limited notice that had been issued by this Court with regard to the nature of the offence on 29th July, 2009, only the bare facts pertaining to the case are necessary.

2. Yogesh, the deceased was employed as a Helper in a bus owned by the appellant's father. He was suspected of misappropriating a part of the fare that was being collected by him from passengers. On the 9th of April, 2002, when the bus was parked at the Karampura bus terminal, Delhi, the appellant questioned the deceased to find out if a part of the fare had been withheld by him, but the deceased answered in the negative. The appellant, however, remained unconvinced. He, therefore, subjected the deceased to a personal search which resulted in the recovery of an amount of Rs. 100/-from his person. The appellant got furious and started beating the deceased. The deceased protested whereupon the appellant brought a knife from the boot of his scooter parked nearby and caused one injury with the knife in the abdomen of the deceased. The bus crew and the passengers advised the appellant to remove the deceased, who was then in a critical condition, to the hospital. The appellant thereupon assisted by one, Kanhaiya took the injured on a two-wheeler to a private clinic but he was advised to take him to a hospital. The appellant, accordingly, took the injured to the ESI Hospital and got him admitted at that place. The appellant also informed the attending doctor that he had found the injured lying unconscious on the roadside and as a good Samaritan had brought him to the hospital after having picked him from there. The Duty Constable at the ESI Hospital informed the police station regarding the admission of the injured on which Sub Inspector D.P. Kajala reached the hospital and found that the injured was unfit to make a statement. A case under Section 307 of the IPC came to be registered against unknown persons. Yogesh died later that day in the ESI Hospital and the case was modified to one under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court found that all the eye witnesses had not supported the prosecution but relying on the circumstantial evidence convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. An appeal taken to the High Court was also dismissed.

3. The present appeal by way of special leave is limited to the nature of the offence only on the understanding that as per the case of the appellant the case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

4. Mr. Sanjiv Bhatnagar, the learned counsel for the appellant has very candidly stated that in view of the limited notice it was not open to him to argue the matter seeking the acquittal of the appellant. He has, accordingly, submitted that taking the prosecution story as it is, it was clear that the matter would fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code as an outcome of a sudden quarrel. He has pointed out that only one injury of small dimensions had been caused by the appellant to the deceased and that too in the abdomen and as the appellant had himself taken the deceased to the hospital, an inference could be drawn that there was no intention to kill the deceased. This plea has been strongly controverted by Mr. Ashok Bhan the learned counsel for the respondent State of Delhi.

5. We have examined the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties very carefully. The sine quo non for the application of an Exception to Section 300 always is that it is a case of murder but the accused claims the benefit of the Exception to bring it out of that Section and to make it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

We must, therefore, assume that this would be a case of murder and it is for the accused to show the applicability of the Exception. Exception 4 reads as under:-

"Exception 4. – Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight