Basant, J

Is the appellant entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC? Was the culpable act done in the heat of passion? Did the appellant take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner? These are the questions that come up for consideration in this appeal before us mainly.

2. The appellant faced indictment for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. He is alleged to have committed the murder of Chandrasekharan at about 6.30 p.m on 11/4/2000 by inflicting three stab injuries with MO1 chisel.

3. The deceased was running a tea shop near the house of the accused. On 11/4/2000 in the afternoon at about 1 p.m. there was an untoward incident at the shop of the deceased. The accused allegedly went to the shop of the deceased and resorted to obscene behaviour. He allegedly exposed his private parts and stated to the deceased that if his wife and daughter were made available he would impregnate them. The deceased wanted the accused to go back. After remaining in the premises for some more time and after committing mischief even thereafter in an adjacent premise, the accused allegedly returned to his house.

4. The next chapter of the unfortunate events occurs on that evening long later at about 6.30 p.m. The deceased proceeded to the house of the accused. PW1 Manikandan who was allegedly present at the first scene, saw this. Apprehending an untoward incident, PW1 had allegedly followed the deceased. When he reached near the house of the accused, he found that the deceased and the accused were involved in a physical altercation in the courtyard in front of the house of the accused. In the course of such physical altercation, the accused allegedly entered the house and came back with MO1 chisel, a tool which he uses for carrying on his income earning activity of comb making from animal horns. PW1 allegedly apprehended immediate danger and he shouted to the deceased to run away. PW1 also ran away; but he fell. The accused allegedly reached the deceased and inflicted three stab injuries on him with MO1. According to the prosecution, this infliction took place beyond the courtyard of the house of the accused at the road in front. According to PW1, he had tried to deter the accused and in the course of such attempt, MO1 weapon had fallen down. PW1 took MO1 and threw it away so that it would not be available to the accused. The accused went away from the scene. PWs 3 and 4 are persons of the locality who came to know about the incident. They reached the scene of the occurrence. They removed the deceased to the doctor. He was pronounced dead. The police came to the scene on getting information about the incident which took place in the locality. PW8 Sub Inspector of Police went to PW1 and recorded Ext.P1 statement. On the basis of Ext.P1 F.I.S, Ext.P7 F.I.R was registered. PW9 commenced the investigation. Inquest report Ext.P2 was prepared. Pws 2 and 3 had signed as attestors in the inquest report. PW9 prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazer under which MO1 was seized from the place where it had fallen when PW1 threw it away. The accused was arrested on the next day and under Ext.P4 seizure mahazer Mos 10 and 11 clothes allegedly worn by the accused at the time of the crime were seized by PW9. PW5 was an attestor of Ext.P4 seizure mahazer. PW6 doctor had conducted the postmortem examination. The deceased had three injuries on him. Each one individually was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Ext.P5 postmortem certificate was issued by PW6. PW7 Village Officer prepared Ext.P6 sketch. Under Ext.P8 seizure mahazer PW9 had seized Mos 2 and 3 clothes which PW1 was allegedly wearing at the time of the occurrence. Exts.P9 and P10 are forwarding note and chemical examiner's report submitted by the Chemical Examiner after examining the blood of the deceased. PW10 filed the charge sheet.

5. The accused, after committal, denied the charge against him before the Sessions Court. Thereupon the pros