Supreme Court of India
A. MAHARAJAversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1300
- Decided
- 14 November 2008
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
Exception 4 to s.300 IPC applies, so the conviction must be under s.304 Part‑I IPC.
Summary
The deceased, Alagu Ambalam, was cutting trees when his son (the accused) confronted him over a land dispute. A verbal altercation escalated into a sudden fight during which the accused snatched the deceased’s aruval (machete) and struck him on the neck and shoulder, causing death. The trial court convicted the accused of murder under s.302 IPC, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the accused contended that Exception 4 to s.300 IPC applied, arguing the killing occurred in a sudden fight without pre‑meditation, undue advantage, or cruelty. The Supreme Court held that the facts satisfied all the ingredients of Exception 4, and therefore the appropriate charge was culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304 Part‑I IPC, imposing a ten‑year imprisonment. The appeal was partly allowed, altering the conviction and sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts of the case satisfy the criteria of Exception 4 to s.300 IPC.
- Whether the accused took undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
- Whether the appropriate conviction should be under s.302 IPC (murder) or s.304 Part‑I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1908s. 313
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 304(Part‑I)
Subjects
murderculpable homicideException 4sudden fightheat of passionundue advantageIndian Penal Codeconviction alteration
Judgment
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1151
-
A. MAHARAJA A
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1790 of 2008)
NOVEMBER 14, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT'PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
..... ~- SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
c
s. 300, Exception 4 - Applicability of- Deceased cutting
trees with a spade and aruval - Sudden fight between
accused and deceased - Accused snatched the aruval and
assaulted deceased with it- Courts below held accused guilty
under s.302· - Accused pleading applicability of Exception 4
D
of s.300 - Held: On facts, Exception 4 to s.300 applicable -
Appropriate conviction would be under s. 304 Part-I and not
s.302 - Conviction altered accordingly.
Prosecution case was that there· was litigation
between the deceased and his son accused which was E
decided in favour of deceased. On the day of occurrence,
PW-1\ wife· of' other son of deceased, was going to the
garden where deceased was cutting trees·. He· was
having a spade and aruval ·in his hand. At that time, the
accused came there and questioned as to why he was F
cutting the trees, and following the same, there was a
Wordy duel. Immediately, the accused snatched the aruval
and attacked the deceased on the neck and shoulder
indiscriminately. PW-1 on seeing this, raised alarm, and
\
immediately, the accused fled away from the place of G
occurrence. As a result, deceased died. Trial Court
convicted accused under s.302 IPC, which was affirmed
by High Court.
.... In the instant appeal, the substantive plea related to
1151 H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R.
A the applicability of Exception 4 of s.300 IPC.
Partly allowing the appeal, t_he Court
HELD:1.1. For applicability of Exception 4 of s.300
IPC, it has to be established that the act was committed
B 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 J.
''\
a cruel or unusual manner. The said exception deals with
a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception,
c 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 Exception 4, there is only that heat of
D passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges ,.
them to do deeds which they would not otherwise do.
There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1;
but .the injury done is not the direct consequence of that
provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in
E which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck,
or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or
in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet th~
subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect
~
of guilt upon equal footing. [Paras 7 and 8) [1156-G-H;
F 1157-A-C]
1.2. A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and
blows on each side. The homicide committed is then
clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such
.cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. Fo·r
G if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable
would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation
or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for
which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may
be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not .,.
H aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken
,_
A. MAHARAJA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1153
the serious turn it did. It is to be noted that the fight' A
occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not
defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of
passion requires that there must be no time for the
passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have
worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal B
altercation in the beginning. It is not possible to enunciate
any general rule. as to what shall be deemed to be a
sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a
quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon
the proved facts of each case. [Para 8] [1157-D, E, G, H; c
1158-A] ,
1.3. For the application of Exception 4, it is not
sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and
., there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that
the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in D
- cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue
advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair
advantage'. [Para 8] [1158-B-C]
2. Where the offehdet takes undue advantage or has E
acted in a cruel or unusual manner. the benefit of
Exception 4 cannot be given to him. If the weapon used
or the manner of attack by the assailant is out of aH
prop~rtion, that circumstance must be taken into
consideration to decide whether undue advantage has F
been taken. [Para 9] [1158-C-D]
3. From the background facts as considered in the
light of the evidence, the inevitable conclusion is that the
occurrence took place in course of sudden quarrel.
Therefore, Exception 4 to s.300 IPC applies. The G
appropriate conviction would be under s.304 Part-I IPC.
Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of
justice. [Para 11] [1158-F-G]
Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1993) SC 2426 H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C~R.
j
A and Iqbal Singh v. State of'Punjab (200'8)·'91'1 :SCAL:E'5'9'9,
relied on.
Case Law ·:Re"ference:
AIR (1993)·'SC '2426 rreUed ·on -IPara ::9
B
(20.08) '9.11 ~SCALE :599 relied ~on t!Para ~10
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :11rimina1Appeal
No. '1790 of'.200"8.
c From the:·final jHdgment and Ord~r.raated-22:3.2007£ofthe
High Court of Judicature at 'Madras, Bench at Madurai tn
Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 531 of 2005.
P.V. Yogeswar:anforthe Appellant.
'D TheJudgmerittof~the·,court was-delivered by
'·,
DR. ARIJITPASAYAT,_J. 1. Leave:granted.
2. :Challenge in'.this appeal is to':thejudgment of a l:3ivision ·
Ber1ch'of the}Madras High Court upholding the conviction of the
E appellant 'for offences ·punishable under Section ~p2 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short'the.IPC') and sentenced him
to undergo imprisonment for life and also ·to. pay a 'fine 6f
· Rs.1,000/-with aefaultstipulations, as.recoraed'by'the'Principal .._
Sessions Judge, 'Madurai, in S.C. No.189 of 2005.
F
3. The prosecution version, in a nutshell, is as follows.
PW-1 is the wife of PW-4. The accused and PW-4 are the
sons of Alagu Ambalam (hereinafter referred ·to as the
'deceased'). PW-2 is the son of PW-1. Alagu Ambalam had
G certain immovable properties which he -partitioned '.1 O years
before the occurrence, and he regained a piece of land namely I
1Ocents, which· is.a :poramboke, for his.livelihood. The,accused
was insisting him to give that land also. There arose a civil
dispute between them. It also ended in favou~:of Alagu
:H Ambalam._ On the day of occurrence i.e, 26.05.2003 at about
A. MAHARAJA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1155
,. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
7.00 A.M., PW-1 was going to the garden to pluck vegetables. A
At that tim'e, her father-in-law, the said Alagu Ambalam, was
cutting Karuvela trees. He was having a spade and aruval in
hand. At that time, the accused came there and questioned how
he could cut the trees, and following the same, there was a
wordy duel. Immediately, the accused snatched the aruval and B
cut him on the neck arid shoulder indis_criminately. PW-1 on
.._
seeing this, raised alarm, and immediately, the accused fled
... away from the place of occurrence. The said A1agu Ambalam
met his instantaneous death. PW-1 proceeded to the Police
. Station, where, the sub~lnspector of Police (PW-11), was c
present. PW-1 gave a report (Ex.P1 ), on the strength of which
a case came to be registered in Crime No.81/2003 under
Section 302 IPC. The first information report, Ex.P-12, along
with Ex.P1 was despatched to the Magistrates' Court.
1
The Inspector of Police (PW-12), on receipt of the copy of D
the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an
inspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared an
observation mahazar, Ex.P-4, and a rough sketch, Ex.P-13.
Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Alagu Ambalam
in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared E
an inquest report, Ex.P-14. The dead body was sent to the
Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P-2, for the
purpose of autopsy.
The Assistant Surgeon (PW-6), _attached to the Government
F
Hospital, Melur, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted
autopsy on the dead body of Alagu Ambalam and found 7 cut
injuries. The doctor gave a post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-3, w'ith
her opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of
hemorrhage and shock due to injuries to major vessels.
G
Pending the investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested
' the accused on 27 .05.2003. He volunteered to give a
confessional statement, which was recorded by the Investigator.
The admissible part of the confession was marked as Ex~ P-6,
pursuant to which he produced M.0.-1, aruval and M.0.-4, Shirt, H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 15 S.C.R
'*
A which have been recovered under a mahazar, Ex.P-7. The
accused was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects
recovered from the place of occu_rrence and from the dead
body and M.Os. I and 4, recovered from the accused, were
subjected to· chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences
B. Department, which resulted in two reports namely Ex.P-10, the
Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P-11, the Serologist's report. _,_
On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final
. report. Charges were framed. The accused pleaded.innocence.
Twelve witnesses were examined to further the prosecution
c version. The accused, in his examination under Section 313 of
the Code ·of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the Code•)
s~bmitted that he has been falsely implicated and in any event,
there was a wordy duel before the occurrence in which the
appellant had purportedly snatched .the weapon from the hands t-
'
D of the deceased .and, therefore, Section 302 IPC has no
application. The Trial Court did not accept the plea and
placing reliance on the· evidence of the eye-witnesses, PWs-1
and 2, recorded the conviction and sentence, as ·noted above.
E 4. The plea taken before the Trial C~urt was reiterated by
the accused persons before the High Court. By the impugned
judgment, the High Court di~ not find· anysubstance in the plea
and dismissed the appeat- ,;.
5. The stand l;>efore the High Court was reiterated by
F learned counsel for the appellant.
~
6. The substantive plea relates to the applicability of f
Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC .
. .
7. For bringing in its operation it has to be established that ·
G
the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight I
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.
H 8. The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts
A. MAHARAJA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1157
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case A
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 Exception 4, there is B !
)....
only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and
urges them to do deeds which they would not otherwise do.
There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the
injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation.
In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding c
that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given
in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may
have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts
them·· in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A 'sudden fight'
implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The
0
homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral
provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be
placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more
appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no
previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly E
takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be
blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had
not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken
the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and
aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame
which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be F
invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a
sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the
fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case
within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be G
found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4
to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to
make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no
time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties
have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal H i
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S. C.R.
-{
l
A altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two
and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not
possible to enunc!ate any general rule as to what shall' be
deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and
whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend
B upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of
Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden
quarrel and there was no· premeditation. It must further be ;
shown. that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted
in cruel or unsual manner. The expression 'undue advantage'·
c as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'.
9. Where the offender takes undue advantage or has acted
in a cruel or unusual manner, the benefit of Exception 4 cannot
be given to him. If the weapon used or the manner of attack by
the assailant is out of all proportion, that circumstance must be )-
0 taken into consideration to decide whether undue advantage
has been taken. In Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1993
SC 2426) it was held that if the accused used deadly weapons
against the unarmed man and struck a blow on the head it must
be held that using the blows with the knowledge that they were
E likely to cause death, he had taken undue advantage.
10. These aspects have been recently highlighted in Iqbal
Singh v. State of Punjab (2008 (11) SCALE 599).
).
11. From the background facts as considered in the light
F ·of the evidence, the inevitable conclusion is. that the occurrence
took place in course of sudden quarrel. Therefore, Exception
4 to Section 300 IPC applies. The appropriate conviction would
be under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Custodial sentence of 10
years would meet the ends of justice.
G
12. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
t'
D.G. Appeal partly allowed. j
...
~
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search