The defenses of irresistible impulse and self-defense are not available to an accused who kills another person in response to a quarrel or threat that occurred several hours earlier, unless the accused had a reasonable apprehension of attack and acted in the heat of passion.

The occurrence which had taken place on 6.9.77 at about 7 P.M. in the house of Gobinda Paul, P.W.2, and which had seen the death of Nowel at the hand of Inush, accused, is not in dispute. What really calls for our decision is as to whether the offence would attract the mischief of section 302, or would come down to section 304 I.P.C.

2. Let the skeletal facts be noted. Both Inush and Nowel were working as ploughmen of P.W. 2. On the date of occurr­ence at about 7 P.M., P.W.1 was told by his mother that Nowel was being chased by somebody. The first impression was that perhaps some dacoit was doing so. A hue and cry was raised. On going inside the house of Nowel, he was found lying on the ground with injury on his abdomen. On being asked, Nowel said that he had been stabbed by Inush with a dagger, where­after the latter had fled away. Inush came back next morning and on being asked by P.Ws 3 and 5, he admitted that he had assaulted Nowel as there was some quarrel between them, and Nowel had said that he would assault Inush. The matter was brought to the notice of Police on the same night and next day morning the police went to the scene, arrested the accused and seized a small dagger containing some blood stains on being produced by the accused. The accused was forwarded to the Court on 8.9.77 when his confession was also recorded which has not been retracted by the accused.

3. The defence version in the confession as well as in his examination under section 313 Cr. P.C. is that on the date of the occurrence at about 6 P.M. Inush had a quarrel with Nowel when the latter had slapped the former. As per the confessi­onal statement, Nowel had then came out with a dao also to cut the accused. The matter subsided thereafter and both took meals. After having done so, the accused suspected that he may be assaulted again. So he got himself armed with a dagger of Nowel and as soon as the latter came out after taking meals, the dagger was thrust inside Nowel's stomach. The accused hide himself in the nearby jute field for the night and on the next day he surrendered and produced the dagger also. Thus, there is no dispute about Inush having assaulted Nowel with a dagger. P.W. 9, who had done the autopsy had found an oblique stab wound in the right iliac fossa 1” lateral to the midpoint of umbillicous, which was 2'' X ¾” x 4" in size. There is, nothing to doubt about the assault of Nowel by Inush, which had ultimately seen the death of Nowel. The learned trial Court has convicted the accused under Section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He has referred the matter to this Court under Rule 16 of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Sibsagar, Nowgong and Mikir Hills Tracts, 1937.

4. Shri Pathak, who has assisted the Court as amicus curiae on behalf of the accused, has submitted that the death was caused by Inush under some irresistible impulse inasmuch as he had developed a fear psychosis that Nowel would kill him and so to protect himself he could not resist stabbing of Nowel. A Division Bench of this Court in Siddheswari v. State of Assam 1981 Cr. L.I. 1005, had an occasion to discuss as to when defence of Impulsive insanity could be available to an accused. As pointed out therein.

"The mental impulse which had led to the commission of the crime has to be irresistible, and not only unresisted, to regard the same as "impulsive insanity". The mere fact that it was committed on a sudden impulse is not sufficient in this context."

It is difficult for us to hold on the facts of this case that the offence had been committed by Inush under any impulsive insanity, as what we know from his confessional statement as well as what is stated before the Court is about a quarrel which had taken place a few hours before the occurrence. We so not think if on the basis of this lone quarrel it can be held that what Inush had done was irresistible. We, therefore, rule out the applicability of section 84 of the Pen