AnkushShivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2013 (Arising
out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6287 of 2011) (Decided on 03.05.2013)
In
this case it was contended by the appellant that the appellant’s case fell
within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C. on the ground that the incident
in question took place on a sudden fight without any premeditation and the act
of the appellant hitting the deceased was committed in the heat of passion upon
a sudden quarrel without the appellant having taken undue advantage or acting
in a cruel or unusual manner.
The
Court agreed with the contention of appellant on the following grounds:
(i) “There
was no premeditation in the commission of the crime. There is not even a
suggestion that the appellant had any enmity or motive to commit any offence
against the deceased, leave alone a serious offence like murder.”
The court noted:
“The prosecution case, is
that the deceased and his wife were guarding their Jaggery crop in their field
at around 10 p.m. when their dog started barking at the appellant and his two
companions who were walking along a mud path by the side of the field nearby.
It was the barking of the dog that provoked the appellant to beat the dog with
the rod that he was carrying apparently to protect himself against being harmed
by any stray dog or animal. The deceased took objection to the beating of the
dog without in the least anticipating that the same would escalate into a
serious incident in the heat of the moment. The exchange of hot words in the
quarrel over the barking of the dog led to a sudden fight, which in turn
culminated in the deceased being hit with the rod unfortunately on a vital part
like the head.”
(ii) The weapon used was
not lethal nor was the deceased given a second blow once he had collapsed to
the ground.
The court noted:
The prosecution case is that no sooner the deceased fell to
the ground on account of the blow on the head, the appellant and his companions
took to their heels – a circumstance that shows that the appellant had not
acted in an unusual or cruel manner in the prevailing situation so as to
deprive him of the benefit of Exception 4.
(iii) During the
exchange of hot words between the deceased and the appellant all that was said
by the appellant was that if the deceased did not keep quiet even he would be
beaten like a dog. The use of these words also clearly shows that the intention
of the appellant and his companions was at best to be labour him and not to
kill him as such.
The cumulative effect of
all these circumstances, in our opinion, should entitle the appellant to the
benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C. [Para 9]
The
court noted following case laws:
Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1989) 2 SCC
217, Dealing with the provision of Exception 4 to Section 300 this Court
observed:
“….. To invoke this exception four requirements must be
satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation;
(iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not
taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel
is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the
assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive
factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and
unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course,
the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel
manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up
a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he
would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted
cruelly.”
Ghapoo Yadav and Ors. v. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 528, where
in court held:
“...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 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 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 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'.”
Sukbhir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327, the Court
observed:
“...All fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as
cruel or unusual for the purposes of not availing the benefit of Exception 4 of
Section 300 IPC. After the injuries were inflicted and the injured had fallen
down, the appellant is not shown to have inflicted any other injury upon his
person when he was in a helpless position. It is proved that in the heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel followed by a fight, the accused who was armed
with Bhala caused injuries at random and thus did not act in a cruel or unusual
manner.
Mahesh v. State of MP (1996) 10 SCC 668, the Court held:
“...Thus, placed as the appellant and the deceased were at the
time of the occurrence, it appears to us that the appellant assaulted the
deceased in that sudden fight and after giving him one blow took to his heels.
He did not cause any other injury to the deceased and therefore it cannot be
said that he acted in any cruel or unusual manner. Admittedly, he did not
assault PW-2 or PW-6 who were also present also with the deceased and who had
also requested the appellant not to allow his cattle to graze in the field of
PW-1. This fortifies our belief that the assault on the deceased was made
during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation. In this fact situation, we
are of the opinion that Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC is clearly attracted to
the case of the appellant and the offence of which the appellant can be said to
be guilty would squarely fall under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC...”
Vadla Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 4 SCALE
108,
Shankar Diwal Wadu v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 518.
To see the full text follow the link: