Holding

The facts do not fall within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC; the conviction should be under Section 304 Part I IPC with a ten‑year sentence.

Summary

The appellant Rakesh was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Kailash and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, contending that the evidence did not establish his guilt and that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel, invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to reduce the charge. The Supreme Court examined the requirements of Exception 4, emphasizing the need for absence of pre‑meditation, a sudden fight, no undue advantage, and no cruel or unusual conduct. The Court found that the facts showed mutual provocation, a violent fight, and that the appellant had taken undue advantage, thus the exception did not apply. Consequently, the appropriate conviction was held to be under Section 304 Part I IPC with a ten‑year rigorous imprisonment, and the appeal was partly allowed, modifying the conviction and sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the facts of the case satisfy the criteria of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC to mitigate murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC should be set aside
Whether the appropriate conviction is under Section 304 Part I IPC with a ten‑year sentence
Whether the prosecution evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 304, s. 326, s. 34

Subjects

murderculpable homicideException 4Section 300 IPCSection 302 IPCSection 304 IPCcriminal lawsudden quarrelpremeditationundue advantageIndian Penal Code

Judgment

RAKESH v. STATE OF M.P. 677

matter and placed charge-sheet against the appellant and A
others for committing offences punishable u/s.302 r/w S.34
IPC. In appeal, conviction of other accused persons was
altered but the conviction of the accused-appellant was
maintained by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Appellant contended that the evidence does not .B
establish his guilt; that even if prosecution version is
accepted in toto, offence under Section 302 IPC is not
made out; and that since the occurrence took place in
the course of a sudden quarrel, Exception 4 to Section
300 IPC is attracted. C
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 For bringing in operation of Exception 4
to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that the act
was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight D
-' 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. (Para - 6) [681-A, B]
1.2 The Fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC covers
acts done in a sudden fight. The said Exception deals with E
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 there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the
case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self- F
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 as in Exception 1; but the
injury done is not the direct consequence of that G
provocation. (Para - 7) [681-B, C, D]
1.3 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 H
.......
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the r"'
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 homicide
committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral
B 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.
(Para - 7) [681-D, E, F]
t
· 1.4 To bring a case within Exception 4 to Section 300
c all the in9redients 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 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 ;_
combat between two or 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 c
~
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.· (Para - 7) [682-A, 8, C]
1.5 For the application of Exception 4, it is not
sufficient to show. that there was a sudden quarrel and
F that there was no premeditation~ It must further be shown ~ ~
l
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". (Para - 7) [682-C, D]
G
Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 4 SCC
653 and Thankachan & Anr. v. State of Kera/a (2007) 11 SCR
1128 - relied on.
2. In the background of the principles of law, as
H indicated, the appropriate conviction would be in terms
'f
RAKESH v. STATE OF M.P. 679
[PASAYAT, J.]
""-1
of Section 304 Part I IPC, and custodial sentence of 1O A
years would meet the ends of justice. (Para - 9) [682-E, F]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICITON: Criminal Appeal
No. 287 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order 10.07.2006 of the High B
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal
No. 382/2000.
i
Raj iv Talwar and Parmanand for the Appellant.

Govind Goel, C.D. Singh, M.P. Singh, Vairagya Vardhan, c
Sunny Chowdhary, Ram Naresh Yadav and Navin Sharnia for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
..... 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
.. Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, upholding
conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and
sentence of imprisonment for life. Four persons faced trial for E
committing murder of Kailash (hereinafter referred to as the
'deceased'). Though the trial court had convicted the appellant
for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, three persons
were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC. By the impugned judgment, conviction of ·F
others was altered and each one of them was convicted for
offences punishable under Section 326 IPC read with 34 IPC
and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.
But the conviction of the appellant as noted above was G
maintained .
...
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 15/11/1998 at about 08.30 pm, in Bhagirathpura, near
the house of Sheetal Deen, Complainant Ramesh and witness
H
,.
r '
)-

'- 680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A Lalchand were standing near the culvert, when Praveen (PW4) r ,,.~

came shouting that brother of Ramesh namely Kamlesh was
being assaulted by the appellants. These persons, therefore,
rushed to the place and witnessed that appellant Shailu, Raju,
and Ravi had kept Kailash in their grip, while Rakesh was
8 assaulting him with a knife, and others were administering kicks,
fits and blows. When these persons raised an alarm, the accused
persons fled away. Kailash was immediately taken to M .Y.
Hospital. He had number of injuries which had been dressed t
initially but when Doctor saw Kailash, he declared him dead.
c According to Ramesh Prajapat there was a quarrel between
them with regard to peels of eggs and it was on that account the
accused persons had assaulted his brother. Report on this
incident (Ex P /18) was lodged which was. recorded in
Rojnamcha. On being informed by the operator from M.Y.
D
Hospital about death of Kailash, lnayat Hussain recorded ·-
information as (Ex. P/28m) and forwarded Raifulla Khan to
)..
investigate. Raifulla Khan then recorded Dehati Naish (Ex.P/w
2) was lodged by Ramesh and after issuing Subpoena, held 4
inquest of which he prepared report. He also forwarded the dead
body under requisition Ex.P2/27 of which post-mortem report
E was received from Dr. Raj Kumar Singh.

On the basis of information lodged, investigation was
undertaken and charge sheet was placed. The accused persons
abjured guilt and pleaded false implication. The trial court and
F the High Court found the evidence of the witnesses to be credible
-~
and cogent and as noted above directed conviction.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the evidence does not establish guilt of the
present appellant. According to him, even if prosecution version
G is accepted in toto, offence under Section 302 IPC is not made ~

out. ·In any event an offence under Section 302 IPC is not made ..-
out. According to him the occurrence took place in the course
of a sudden quarrel and therefore Exception 4 to Section 300 "i
IPC is attracted.
H
t-
""
L
RAKESH v. STATE OF M.P. 681
[PASAYAT, J.]
"' -; 5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgments A
of the Courts below.
6. For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC, it has to be established 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 8
advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
i 7. The Fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC covers acts done
in a sudden fight. The said Exception deals with a case of
proseculion not covered by the First Exception, after which its
place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is C'
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 passion which clouds men's sober reason and
urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There D
~' 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 struck, or some provocation given in the
origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have E
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 homicide
committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation,
nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. F ,
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, 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
G
.. conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is
then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to
f'
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
H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

..,. ...
A offender 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. It is to be noted that
the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not '
B defined in IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion
requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool
I
I
down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into
a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A
t !
1--
fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or
c 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 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 that there was no premeditation.
D
It must further be 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".

E 8. The above position is highlighted in Sandhya Jadhav
v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 4 SCC 653), Thankachan &
Anr. v. State of Kera/a (2007 (11) SCR 1128).
9. In the background of the principles of law indicated
above, the appropriate conviction would be in terms of Section
F 304 Part I IPC, and custodial sentence of 10 years would meet ).- .
the ends of justice.
10. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
S.K.S. Appeal partly allowed.
G
..
;.-

'
)

r