Supreme Court of India
IQBAL SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 960
- Decided
- 21 August 2008
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Court held that the occurrence was a sudden quarrel, so Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies and the appropriate conviction is under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Summary
The appellants, who were first cousins of the complainant, removed tubewell pipes from a piece of common land while armed with spades. When the complainant party intervened and objected, a verbal altercation escalated into a physical fight, during which the deceased Sikander Singh was killed and two others were injured. The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 302, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. On appeal they claimed private defence and, alternatively, that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel, invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "sudden fight", "undue advantage" and "cruel or unusual manner" and held that the facts showed a sudden quarrel without pre‑meditation or undue advantage, making Exception 4 applicable. Consequently, the appropriate conviction was under Section 304 Part I IPC, and a ten‑year imprisonment was deemed sufficient. The appeals were partly allowed, reducing the conviction and confirming the sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the incident falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden quarrel) thereby reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- Whether the appellants were justified in claiming the right of private defence.
- Interpretation of the terms "sudden fight", "undue advantage" and "cruel or unusual manner" under Exception 4.
- Whether conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 304(1), s. 323, s. 324, s. 34
Subjects
murderculpable homicide not amounting to murderException 4sudden quarrelprivate defenceundue advantageIPCcriminal appealsentencing
Judgment
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 459
IQBAL SINGH A
V.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No.1321 of 2008)
AUGUST 21, 2008
B
Jl. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJJ .
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 300, Exception 4 - Applicability
of - Discussed - On facts, held, the occurrence in question c
took place in course of sudden quarrel, hence, Exception 4
to s. 300 was applicable - Appropriate conviction would be u/
s. 304, Part I - Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet
the ends of justice.
Words and Phrases - "sudden fight" and "undue advantage" D
- Meaning of - In context to s.300 !PC, Exception 4.
According to the prosecution, the accused-
appellants armed with spades came upto the tubewell
installed on the common land jointly owned by them E
and the complainant party and started pulling out the
tubewell pipes, which was objected to by the
complainant party, on which the appellants attacked
them resulting in death of one person and incised
injuries to PWs 6 and 7.
F
>- The Trial Court found the appellants guilty under
ss.302, 324 and 323 r/w s.34 IPC. On appeal, High Court
rejected the plea raised by the appella.nts relating to non-
applicability of s.302 IPC and affirmed the conviction.
Before this Court, the appellants challenged their G
conviction on the ground that they were exercising the
right of private defence and in the alternative contended
that the occurrence in question took place in the course
of a sudden quarrel and therefore s.302 IPC had no
459 H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
A application. The substantive plea related to the
applicability of Exception 4 to s.300 IPC.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1.1. For bringing in the· operation of
B , Exception 4 to s.300 IPC, it has to be established that
the act was committed without premeditation, in a )It
sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sud'den
quarrel without the offender having taken undue
advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual
c manner. [Para 1O] [465-GH]
1.2. The Fourth Exception of s.300 IPC covers acts
done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a
case of prosecution not covered by the first exception,
after which its place would have been more appropriate.
· D The exception is founded upon the same principle, for
ii) 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
passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges
E · ·them to deeds which they wo~ld 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 that a blow may have been
F 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
G . ~ach 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. 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 takes place,
.H
~ IQBAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 461
)Ir"
for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It A
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. [Para 11] [466-A-F] B
._ 1.3. The help of Exception 4 can be 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 c
within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it
·must be found. The 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to
s.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 D
parties have worked themselves into a fury on account
of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight· is a
-1(,
combat between two and more persons whether with or
without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any
general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden E
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. 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 F
that the offender has not taken undue advantage or
:I-
acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue
advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair
advantage'. [Para 11] [466-F-H, 467-A-C]
1.4. Where the offender takes undue advantage or G
• has acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the benefit of
J. 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 taken into
consideration to decide whether undue advantage has H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
A been taken. [Para 12] [467-D]
Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1993) SC 2426
- referred to .
2. From the background facts as considered in the
B 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 ·j
appropriate conviction would be under s.304 Part I, IPC.
Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of
c justice. [Para 13] [467-F]
Case Law Reference
...
AIR (1993) SC 2426 referred to Para 12
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
D Appeal No. 1321 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.8.2006 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2003 ~
E WITH
Crl. A. No. 1322 of 2008
A.S. Pundir and Dr. Vipin Gupta for the Appellant.
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and H.S. Sandhu
F for the Respondents.
· The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
G 2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of
a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
whereby an appeal and a criminal revision were disposed of. ),...
The appellants were found guilty of offence punishable under
Sections 302, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian
H Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and· sentenced to
IQBAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 463
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
")r-
undergo various terms of sentences. The Criminal Appeal was A
filed by three appellants questioning the conviction and
sentence as recorded. Complainant filed a revision petition
stating that she was entitled to compensation.
3. Background facts giving rise to the trial are essentially
- B
as follows:
>"-
....... The complainant and the appellants are first cousins,
,, and as such are closely related to each other. Their grandfather
was Roor Singh. As per site plans Ex. PP prepared by Makiat
Singh, Patwari PW4 and Ex. PT prepared by Sukhchain Singh c
PW9 (1.0.), it shows that the place of occurrence was in the
common land owned both by the appellants and the
complainant party. The tubewell of which the pipes were being
taken out by the appellants, was also in the common piece of
land. Sikander Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'}
D
was standing in the water-course point B (Ex.PT). Complainant
Gursewak Singh was standing in the common land Point C
(Ex.PT) and Bhim Singh was standing at Point D (Ex. PT). It is
the appellants who went 16 to 35 feet towards the complainants
where deceased Sikander Singh and the other two witnesses
Gursewak Singh (PW6) and Bhim Singh (PW7) were standing E
and thereafter attacked them. Gursewak Singh (PW6) asked
the appellants not to take out the iron and plastic pipes of the
tubewell, but firstly to talk to the elders. Malkiat Singh, Patwari
(PW4), who is a key witness in regard to the ownership of the
piece of land where the tubewell was installed, was not put any F
).. question regarding the ownership of the common land.
Gursewak Singh (PW6), in his testimony before the Court,
stated that the appellants on 7.1.2001 at about 1.00 P.M.
armed with spades came to the tubewell and started removing
G
the pipes, which was jointly owned by both the appellants arid
complainant party. On being stopped, the appellants felt
.l
offended and attacked the complainant party. He (PW6) has
J further stated that there was no dispute regarding the joint
property, but the appellants. were not on visiting terms with
H
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
them as far social functions were concerned. Sikander Singh ~
A
was attacked in the joint water channel and across the water
channel there was the field of Gurpiar Singh, father of Iqbal
Singh. After leaving the common pipes of land where the
tubewell was installed, rest of the land had been divided by
B both the parties and they were cultivating the land separately
and peacefully. The complainant party did not have any )'_
weapons in their hands when they had gone to stop the ~
· appellants. This witness (PW6) has stated that they did not go \.
near the appellants, but asked them not to remove the pipes.
c They were at that time standing at a distance of 5-6 karms.
Bhim Singh (PW7) has also reiterated the same. Gursewak
Singh (PW6) has stated, that Balbir Singh and Hamir Singh
have their fields at a distance of about half a kills from the
place of occurrence. Both these witnesses Gursewak Singh
(PW6) and Bhim Singh (PW7) corroborate each other inter-
D
se and also corroborate the FIR Ex. PQ/1.
The medical evidence also corroborates the statements
given by the eye witnesses. Dr. Deepak Rai (PW 1) has stated
in his testimony, that on examining Gursewak Singh he found •
E that he had received one incised wound injury on the scalp left
parietal area vertical in position. Similarly on examining Bhim
Singh, he found the first injury to be an incised wound. Second
and third were abrasions on the left shoulder and neck. The
fourth injury was a lacerated wound on the right parietal area
F of scalp. On the post-mortem conducted on Sikander Singh,
an incised wound was found on the parietal area of the scalp,
-..(
about 12 ems from right ear pinna ~ackwards, traversing part
of left parietal area of scalp to left occipital area. The medical
evidence corroborates the ocular account.
G 4. Trial court took note of the fact that the appellants and
the members of the complainant party are related to each
other closely. The dispute arose because of conflicting claims J... '
as to the ownership of the land. It was submitted that the i
occurrence took place when the members of the complainant
H party came forward and obstructed the appellant from doing
'
IQBAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 465
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
the work and restrained them from pulling out the pipe. There A
was exchange of hot words and in the process, the occurrence,
according to the prosecution, took place. In essence it was
submitted that the accused were exercising the right of private
defence or in the alternative the occurrence took place in the
course of a sudden quarrel and therefore Section 302 IPC 8
)L has no application.
5. Stand of the State was that though there appears to
be some exchange of words that cannot take out the case out
of the application of Section 302 IPC. The trial court found
substance in the plea and found the accused persons guilty. c
6. Before the High Court it was submitted that the factual
scenario has not been correctly appreciated by the trial court.
The plea relating to non-applicability of Section 302 IPC was
reiterated. The High Court did not find any substance. It noted
D
that the appellants pulled out the iron and plastic pipes which
were installed on the land jointly owned by both the parties.
Since the accused persons pulled out the pipes it was natural
that the members of the complainant party who were standing
at a distance of 16 to 35 feets from the appellants intervened
and asked them not to pull out the pipes unless the elders E
take a decision. The appellants did not pay any heed. That
being so the case at hand was covered by Section 302 IPC.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the stand
taken before the trial court and the High Court. F
8. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments
of the trial court and the High Court.
9. The substantive plea relates to the applicability of
Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
G
10. For bringing in its operation it has to be established
J_
that the act was committed 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 a cruel or unusual manner. H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R.
A 11. The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers
acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a
case 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
B 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 passion which clouds
men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they
would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4
.c 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 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
0
of guilt upon equal footing. 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.
For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable
E 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 aggravated it by his
own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did.
F 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 invoked if death
is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c)
without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted
G 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 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
H passion requires that there must be no time for the passions
IQBAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 467
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.J
)f
to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked A
themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in
the beginning. A fight is a combat betyveen two and more
persons whether with or without weapons. 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 B
,).:._
is sudden or not must necessarily depend 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. lt must further be shown that the offender
has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual c
manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the
provision means 'unfair advantage'.
12. 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 D
of attack by the assailant is out of all proportion, that
circumstance must be 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 E
struck a blow on the head it must be held that using the blows
with the knowledge that they were likely to cause death, he
had taken undue advantage.
13. From the background facts as considered in the light
of the evidence, the inevitable conclusion is that the occurrence F
..:... 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.
. 14. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
8.8.8. Appeals Partly allowed.
G
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search