Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court
Supreme Court Explains Procedure To Identify Whether Offence Is Murder Or Culpable Homicide Not Amounting To Murder
|The Supreme Court observed that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC applies in the absence of any premeditation, which is very clear from the words used in the provision itself.
To approach the problem whenever a Court is confronted with the question whether the offence is ‘murder’ or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, the Supreme Court in its Judgment, has explained a procedure.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused against the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which partly allowed his Appeal challenging conviction.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan elucidated, “… whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is “murder” or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, it will be convenient to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage is, whether the accused committed an act which caused the death of another person. Proof of a causal connection between the act of the accused and the resulting death leads to the second stage, for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to “culpable homicide” as defined in Section 299 of the IPC. If the answer to this question is, prima facie, found in the affirmative, the next stage involves considering the application of Section 300 of the IPC. At this stage, the court must determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of “murder” contained in Section 300. If the answer to this is in the negative, the offence would be “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, punishable under either the first or the second part of Section 304, depending respectively on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. However, if the answer is in the positive, but the case falls within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, punishable under the Part I of Section 304 of the IPC.”
AOR Manjeet Chawla represented the Appellant/Accused while Standing Counsel Sugandha Jain represented the Respondent/State.
Court’s Observations
The Court observed that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) applies in the absence of any premeditation, which is very clear from the words used in the provision itself.
“It contemplates that the sudden fight must occur in the heat of passion, or upon a sudden quarrel. The Exception deals with a case of provocation not covered by Exception 1, although it would have been more appropriately placed after that exception. It is founded upon the same principle, as both involve the absence of premeditation”, it added.
The Court said that while Exception 1 involves total deprivation of self-control, Exception 4 refers to that heat of passion which clouds a person’s sober reason and urges them to commit acts they would not otherwise commit.
“There is provocation in Exception 4, as there is in Exception 1, but the injury caused is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact, Exception 4 addresses cases where, notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck or provocation given at the outset of the dispute, regardless of how the quarrel originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties’ places them on an equal footing with respect to guilt”, it noted.
The Court further explained that a “sudden fight” implies mutual provocation and the exchange of blows on both sides and in such cases, the homicide committed is clearly not attributable to unilateral provocation, nor can the entire blame be placed on one side and if it were, Exception 1 would be the more appropriate provision.
“There is no prior deliberation or intention to fight; the fight breaks out suddenly, and both parties are more or less to blame. One party may have initiated it, but had the other not aggravated the situation by their own conduct, it may not have escalated to such a serious level. In such scenarios, there is mutual provocation and aggravation, making it difficult to determine the precise share of blame attributable to each participant. The protection of Exception 4 may be invoked if death is caused: (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the deceased”, it enunciated.
The Court remarked that, to bring a case within Exception 4, all the ingredients mentioned therein must be satisfied and it is important to note that the term ‘fight’ occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is not defined in the IPC.
“A fight necessarily involves two parties – it takes two to make a fight. The heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool, and in such case, the parties may have worked themselves into a fury due to a prior verbal altercation. 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 constitutes a “sudden quarrel”. This is a question of fact, and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case”, it also said.
Furthermore, the Court noted that for the application of Exception 4, it is not enough to show that there was a sudden quarrel and no premeditation and it must also be shown that the offender did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner.
“The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provision means “unfair advantage”. … Section 304 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Part I of this Section provides that if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, then the punishment may extend up to imprisonment for life. On the other hand, Part II of Section 304 provides that if the offending act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, then the punishment may extend to imprisonment for 10 years”, it added.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that the High Court considered only the first part of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and this part refers to the absence of premeditation in a sudden fight arising from a sudden quarrel in a heat of passion.
“However, it does not end there. The exception further requires that the offender must not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Having regard to the manner in which the assault was carried out, could it not be said that the offender i.e., the appellant-herein took undue advantage and also could be said to have acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The deceased was unarmed, it was not mutual fight between two individuals that would bring the case within the ambit of Exception 4. The deceased was absolutely harmless when the appellant inflicted injuries all over his body indiscriminately”, it said.
The Court remarked that if at all the High Court intended to extend the benefit of any of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, it ought to have considered Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC.
“However, it is not necessary for us to delve into Exception 1 i.e., grave and sudden provocation since, we have already reached the conclusion that the case in hand is, one of no legal evidence and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. We refer to Exception 1 merely to illustrate that, if at all, it was this exception that could have been examined. It is alleged that while the appellant and the deceased were consuming alcohol at the deceased's residence, the appellant showed the deceased a photograph of his girlfriend. The deceased allegedly made an obscene remark, “get your girlfriend to my place and leave her with me for one night.” Such a statement might have provoked the appellant, who then picked up a vegetable-cutting knife lying in one corner of the house and inflicted injuries upon the deceased. This aspect could have been considered in that context”, it added.
The Court, therefore, was convinced that the Judgment passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law.
“The appellant is acquitted of all the charges, and he be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. The bail bonds stand discharged, if any. … The Registry shall circulate one copy each of this judgment to all the High Courts”, it directed and concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 927)