Holding

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC does not apply; the appellant is liable under Section 304 Part II IPC.

Summary

The appellant Pappu was convicted for the death of Mal Singh, who died after a lathi blow to the head during a sudden quarrel at a marriage function. The appellant argued that the incident fell within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which would reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II). The Supreme Court examined the requirements of Exception 4 – no pre‑meditation, a sudden fight, no undue advantage, and no cruel or unusual manner, with the fight being between the parties involved. It held that these conditions were not satisfied, noting the use of a weapon, the force of the blow, and the lack of mutual combat. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appellant could not invoke Exception 4 and should be convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. The appeal was partly allowed, reducing the conviction to Section 304 Part II with an eight‑year imprisonment sentence.

Issues considered

Whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies to the facts of the case
Whether a single lathi blow precludes conviction under Section 302 IPC
Whether the elements of undue advantage or cruel/unusual manner are established

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 294, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304(2), s. 323, s. 34, s. 506(2)

Subjects

Section 302 IPCSection 304 IPCException 4sudden quarrelculpable homicidelathi blowIndian Penal Codecriminal law

Judgment

A PAPPU
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JULY 11. 2006

B [ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA. JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

Section 300, Exception 4-Sudden quarrel betll'een complainants' side
C and acc11sed persons-One of the accused giving a single lat hi blow on head
of his opponent and another causing injuries on his left hand-Injured died
the following day in hospital-Conviclion by trial court u/s 30213./-High
Co11rt convicting one accused uls 302 and anolher u/s 323-Remaining accused
acq11it1ed-Appeal by life convic1-Plea of applicability of Exception-4 to
D S. 300 raised-Held, it would be appropriate lo convict appel/a/1/-accused 11/
s 30./ (Part ff)-lngredienrs of Exceprion-./ ro S.300 explained.

In a marriage in a village an altercation and exchange of hot words
took place between complainant and his father on the one side and the
accused on the other. Suddenly, accused 'P' gave a lathi blow on the head
E of the father of the complainant. Another accused 'M' is also said to have
caused injury on his left hand. The incident was witnessed by the
complainant (PW2), wife of the injured (PW3) and (PWS). The injured
was taken to the Primary Health Center. The doctor (PW 6) prepared the
medical report and as the injured was in coma, referred him to the District
F Hospital where the injured died the following day. Accused 'P', 'M' and
three others were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 302/
34, 294/34 and 506(2)/34 IPC. The trial court convicted them u/s 302/34
IPC. On appeal, the High Court held that conviction of accused 'M' u/s
302/34 IPC was not maintainable and convicted him u/s 323 IPC.
Conviction of accused 'P' was altered from one u/s 302/34 to S.302 IPC.
G The remaining accused were acquitted. Aggrieved, the life convict filed
the present appeal.

It was contended for the appellant that the prosecution case indicates
that only one lathi blow was given by the appellant in the course of a

H 394
PAPPU v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 395
sudden quarrel and as there was no premeditation nor the accused took A
any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner, the act attributed to
the appellant falls under Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC.

Allowing the appeal in part, the Court

HELD: I.I. The help of Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC can be B
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 found to have been established. It is to be noted that the 'fight'
occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It c
takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion require~ that there must be no
time for the passions to cool down and in this case, t~e parties have worked
themselves into a fury on account of the verbal alter ation in the beginning.
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 D
shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel
or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the
provision means 'unfair advantage'. (399-B-E)

1.2. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that
whenever one blow is giveq, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. It would depend E
upon the weapon used, the size of it in some cases, force with which the
blow was given, part of the body where it was given and several such
relevant factors. [399-FJ

1.3. Considering the factual background in the instant case it will
be appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 304 (part II) IPC, F
instead of Section 302 IPC as has been done by the trial court and affirmed
by the High Court. Custodial sentence of eight years would meet the ends
of justice. (399-G I

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appe~I No. 751
G
of 2006.
~'
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.2005 of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 590/2005.

Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Appellant.
.. H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Siddhartha Dave and Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. ,.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted.

B Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of judgment rendered by
a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench. By the
impugned judgment conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short '!PC') and sentence of RI
for life and fine of Rs.500/- imposed by the trial Court were maintained.

c Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 26.5 .2004 in village Teki marriage function of the daughter of one
Rama was going on. In the said marriage function, Rama invited complainant ...
Madhu Singh (PW-2) and his family members. In the afteriioon between 3
to 4 p.m. father and mother of the complainant i.e. Mal Singh (hereinafter
D referred to as the 'deceased') and Sajan Bai, went to the house of Rama for
taking meals. At that time the complainant Madhu Singh was sitting and
taking his meal and his father was going to another room for taking meal. At
that juncture accused Bondar, his son accused Pappu i.e. the present appellant
and Munna reached there, abused Mal Singh and asked him as to who had
E invited him. There was exchange of hot words and altercations took place.
Suddenly, appellant Pappu dealt a lathi blow on the left side of the head of
the deceased Mal Singh. Accused Munna also caused injury on left shoulder
and left hand of Mal Singh. Because of blow by lathi, Mal Singh fell down
on the ground. At that moment Madhu, Ban Singh and Sajjan Bai witnesses
rushed to save deceased Mal Singh. The deceased fell down uriconscious
F because of the injuries. The appellant and other accused persons threatened
the complainant and others and fled away from the scene of the occurrence.
The incident was witnessed by Ban Singh (PW-5), Sajjan Bai (PW-3), Madhu
(PW-2) and Kamlabai. PW-2 lodged the report (Exhibit P-2) on the same day
in the night about 8 p.m. at Police Station Baag. His report, (Exhibit P-2),
was recorded by Inspector K.C. Pathak (PW-7). On the basis of the report
G
Crime No.90/04 under Sections 307 and 294/34 IPC was registered. Injured
Mal Singh was sent for medical examination to Primary Health Centre Baag, ...
where he was attended by Dr. H.S. Muvel (PW-6). Dr. Muvel found only
three external injuries on the person of the deceased vi de his medical report
(Exhibit P-12). Injured Mal Singh was immediately referred by letter, Exhibit
H P-13, for further treatment to District Hospital, Barwani because at that time
PAPPU v. STATE OF MADHY A PRADESH [PASAYA T, J.) 397
c he was in coma. Further investigation was done by S.P. Singh Sisodiya (PW- A
I0), and the Station House Officer. He prepared spot map, (Exhibit P-3) and
effected seizure of Terricot Kurta, Dhoti and Shawl from the house of the
deceased Mal Singh. The injured died in the District Hospital, Barwani on
27.5.2004. Intimation to this effect was sent to the police. Thereafter, the
police prepared inquest report and sent the deceased for postmortem
examination. Postmortem was performed by Dr. Deepak Mayeriya (PW-9).
B
On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed indicating
commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 294/34 and 506(2)/
34 of the !PC against the appellant and other accused persons.

The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded their innocence.
Therefore, they were put to trial. They examined Laxman (DW-1), Ram
c
Singh (DW-2) in their defence. The learned Court convicted and sentenced
the appellant and other co-accused for commission of offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 !PC.

Before the High Court it was pleaded that the incident had occurred all D
of a sudden without any pre-mediation over a very trivial issue and some
misunderstanding of the appellant, other accused persons and the complainant
Madhu Singh and his father Mal Singh. During the course of verbal altercation,
the present appellant picked up a Iathi and gave a blow. The prosecution
witnesses PW-2, PW-5 and others tried to assault the appellant. It was
submitted that against accused Neelabai the prosecution had changed its stand E
from time to time. Name of accused Govind and Leelabai were not mentioned
in the first information report lodged by Madhu (PW-2).
,. So far as the accused Bonder is concerned, it was stated that he had
abused the prosecution witness who claimed to be eye-witnesses. The fatal
-1
blow was attributed to the appellant, while rest of the injuries found on the
F
person of the deceased, in the opinion of the doctor (PW-9), were simple in
nature and the same did not contribute to the cause of death of the deceased.
Therefore, it was submitted that a case under Section 302 !PC was not made
out.
G
Stand of the State on the other hand was that looking to the number of
injuries and the nature thereof i.e. on the head and other parts of the body,
conviction has been rightly recorded. Because of the acts of the accused
persons, deceased had died on the next day in the hospital.

. ' High Court after analyzing the evidence came to hold that conviction H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A of accused Munna under Section 302 read with Section 34 !PC was not
maintainable and he was instead of convicted under Section 323 IPC.
Conviction of accused Bondar, Govind and Leelabai under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC was set aside and they were acquitted. Conviction of
present appellant was altered from Section 302 read with Section 34 !PC to
Section 302 IPC.
B
In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the background facts projected by the prosecution clearly show that the
assault was given in the course of a sudden quarrel. There was no pre-
mediation and the accused did not take advantage and had also not acted in
C a cruel manner. Only one blow by lathi was allegedly given by picking up
a lathi. Prior to that he was not armed. In any event only one blow was given.
In essence it was submitted that Section 302 IPC has no application and in
essence Fourth Exception of Section 300 !PC applies.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the
D judgment of the High Court.
The pivotal plea relates to the applicability of Exception 4 of Section
300 IPC.

For bringing in its operation it has to be established that the act was
E 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.

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
F 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 I 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
G not otherwise do. There is provocation ln Exception 4 as in Exception I; 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 of guilt upon equal footing. A 'sudden fight'
H implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed
PAPPUv. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [PASAYAT, J.] 399

is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could A
the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more
appropriately applicable would be Exception I. There is no previous
deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which
both patties 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 B
taken the serious tum 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 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 C
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 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 altercation in the beginning.
A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without D
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
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 E
that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual
manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means
'unfair advantage'.

It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever
one blow is given, Section 302 !PC is ruled out. It would depend upon the F
weapon used, the size of it in some cases, force with which the blow was
given, part of the body it was given and several such relevant factors.

Considering the factual background in the case at hand it will be
appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC, instead of
Section 302 !PC as has been done by the trial court and affirmed by the High G
Court. Custodial sentence of eight years would meet the ends of justice.

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

R.P. Appeal partly allowed.
H