Infliction Of Knife Blows On Unarmed Person At Vital Parts Of Body Indicative Of Acting Cruelly: Supreme Court Refuses To Convert Conviction U/s. 302 To 304 IPC

The appeal was filed by a man who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The impugned order of the High Court affirmed his conviction.

The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated, “In the instant case, there is no evidence of exchange of blows. In our view, therefore, case would not fall under Exception 4 to Section 300. Moreover, infliction of 4 knife blows to an unarmed person, on vital parts of the body, is indicative of the accused acting in a cruel manner.”

AOR Ajay Marwah represented the Appellant, while AOR Varinder Kumar Sharma represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellant that the evidence indicated that the deceased was addicted to drugs, and loud shouts were heard before the occurrence. Based on that, it was submitted that the incident was preceded by an altercation/ quarrel and, therefore, it occurred in such a manner that it may fall either under Exception 2, i.e., exceeding self-defence or under Exception 4, i.e., without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the autopsy report suggested that the deceased was inflicted with four knife blows on vital parts of his body. “Common carotid and subclavian arteries were found cut. Thus, in our view, injuries found on the body of the deceased in ordinary course would have resulted in death”, it stated.

The Bench noticed that no defence evidence was led, and the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was one of denial. Further, there was no statement that the deceased had attacked the appellant or caused any injury or harm to the appellant. On a perusal of the petitioner’s arguments, the Bench noted that the act in question would not fall under Exception 2 because there was no evidence to show that the accused or his property was attacked by the deceased. Even in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, no plea of self-defence or of the deceased causing any injury to the appellant was raised. The Bench also mentioned that no defence evidence was led. It was also not shown that the deceased was armed. “In such circumstances, in our view, the benefit of Exception 2 would not be available to the petitioner”, it held.

Referring to Exception 4, the Bench explained that an act of culpable homicide does not amount to murder if following ingredients are fulfilled (i) there is no pre-meditation; (ii) there is a sudden fight; (iii) the act is committed in the heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant has not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Considering that the term ‘fight’ has not been defined in IPC, the Bench stated that the consistent view is that it implies mutual assault by use of criminal force and not mere verbal duel.

Dealing with the aspect of Exception 1 to Section 300, the Bench held that there was not much evidence on record to disclose that provocation was so grave and sudden that the appellant was deprived of his self-control. Thus, finding no mitigating circumstances based on which the sentence could be reduced, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Surender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1412)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Ajay Marwah, Advocates Swaroopanand Mishra, Mrigank Bhardwaj, Dhriti Sharma, Rahulkumar, Rajiv Sethi

Respondent: AOR Varinder Kumar Sharma

Click here to read/download Order