Section 300 Exception 4
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.
Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
IPC , 1860, Section 300 Exception 4 - IPC , 1860, Section 304 IPC Part-I - Murder - Propriety of conviction of one accused even while the co-accused persons are acquitted - Now, when the prosecution case is disbelieved in relation to the accused Nos. 2 and 3, the questions perforce arise as to whether the implicating parts of the prosecution evidence qua the appellant could be segregated from the other part/s and as to whether it would be safe to accept the prosecution case against the appellant alone? - The significant part of the matter is that such accounts by the witnesses stand disbelieved in relation to the accused No. 2 and the accused No. 3, both of whom stand acquitted - In our view, when accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 are removed out of scene, the entire complexion of the prosecution story is altered on material aspects and such an alteration cannot be ignored as being wholly immaterial or irrelevant - If the prosecution case is taken as false (or at least doubtful) as regards accused No. 2 and accused No. 3, this part of falsehood (or doubtfulness) is difficult to be segregated for the purpose of believing the prosecution case qua the appellant alone - The exercise of sifting the grain from the chaff in this matter would shake, rather annihilate, the fundamentals of the prosecution case; and an entirely new prosecution story shall have to be assumed - In our view, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, it would be unsafe to assume such or akin scene of occurrence in replacement of the story propounded by the prosecution - As noticed from the decisions above-referred, when this Court found that separating the truth from falsehood was not feasible because of the two being inseparably mixed up, the prosecution case was discarded in toto - However, such a course cannot be adopted in this case and it cannot be held that the appellant was not involved in the occurrence or did not kill the deceased, essentially for the reason that the appellant himself took the defence that he assaulted the deceased in exercise of his right of private defence - Even after disbelieving the case of prosecution as regards the happenings, but taking into account the admitted case of the appellant that he did inflict injury on the person of the deceased, the matter is required to be examined further on the question as to whether the appellant is entitled to be acquitted for having justifiably acted in exercise of the right of private defence in order to save his wife from the alleged assault and molestation - In view of the overall circumstances of this case, we are inclined to accept the alternative case of the appellant that the incident in question took place without any premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, when the deceased attempted entry into his house; and the appellant did neither take any undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner - A fortiori, we are inclined to extend the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC to the appellant - However, the act of the appellant leading to the death having been with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the appellant deserves to be convicted for the offence under Part-I of Section 304 IPC - IPC , 1860, Sections 302/34 and 341. 2019 SCeJournal 845
IPC , Section 302, Fourth Exception - Sudden fight - No premeditation – No undue advantage taken - Sudden fight implies the absence of premeditation - Even as per evidence there was a wordy quarrel and in that quarrel the appellant inflicted farsi blow on the head of the deceased - As the injuries inflicted on the deceased in the sudden fight between the deceased and the accused party, there was no premeditation - One injury was caused to the deceased by farsi blow on the head which indicates that the appellant has not taken undue advantage of the deceased - The manner the occurrence and the injury inflicted on the deceased attract Exception 4 to Section 300 - Conviction of the appellant under Section 302 modified to Section 304 Part-I IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. (2018)2 SCeJ 1714
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) S. 300 clause (3), 302 IPC 304 Part I - Condition of deceased at time of admission in hospital was serious and injuries received in the head was dangerous to his life Doctor opined that condition of the deceased at the time of discharge from hospital was not critical and his condition was stable - Apparent that the death occurred sixty two days after the occurrence due to septicaemia and it was indirectly due to the injuries sustained by the deceased caused in the incident - Prosecution failed to elicit from the Doctor that the head injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death - Having regard to the fact that deceased survived for sixty two days and that his condition was stable when he was discharged from the hospital, the court cannot draw an inference that the intended injury caused was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death so as to attract clause (3) of Section 300 IPC - Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC. (2016)3 P.L.R. SC 976
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) S. 300 Exception 4 - In terms of explanation to Exception 4, it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. (2016)3 P.L.R. SC 632
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) S. 300 Exception 4 - Keeping in view the nature of the injury, the vital part of the body on which the same was inflicted and the weapon used by the accused, and the medical evidence, that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death, culpable homicide would tantamount to murder but for the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 - The circumstances of the case leave no manner of doubt that the incident was without any pre-meditation and a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel - The injuries upon the deceased were inflicted in the heat of passion and without the appellant taking any undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner - The fact situation of the case, therefore, attracts Exception 4 especially when in terms of explanation to Exception 4, it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault - Offence committed by the author of the injury is not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. (2016)3 P.L.R. SC 632
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) S. 300, 302 IPC, 304 Part 1 - Intention is different from motive - It is the intention with which the act is done that makes a difference in arriving at a conclusion whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder - Emphasis in Section 300 (3) IPC is on the sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause death - Sufficiency is the high probability of death in the ordinary course of nature - When the sufficiency exists and death follows, causing of such injury is intended and causing of such offence is murder - For ascertaining the sufficiency of the injury, sometimes the nature of the weapon used, sometimes the part of the body on which the injury is caused and sometimes both are relevant - Depending on the nature of weapon used and situs of the injury, in some cases, the sufficiency of injury to cause death in the ordinary course of nature must be proved and cannot be inferred from the fact that death has, in fact, taken place - Appellant emerged carrying pistol in his hand and fired at the deceased - The weapon used and the manner in which attack was made and the injury was inflicted due to premeditation clearly establish that the appellant intended to cause the injury - Once it is established that the accused intentionally inflicted the injury, then the offence would be murder, if it is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death- Injury was on the inner part of left thigh, which is the non-vital organ - Sufficiency of injury to cause death must be proved and cannot be inferred from the fact that death has taken place - Prosecution has not elicited from the doctors that the gunshot injury on the inner part of left thigh caused rupture of any important blood vessel and that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death - Conviction converted form Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part 1 IPC. (2016)3 P.L.R. SC 235