A. MAHARAJA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 1151 · Decided: 14-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 1151 
-
A. MAHARAJA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1790 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 14, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT'PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
..... 
~-
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
s. 300, Exception 4 - Applicability of- Deceased cutting c 
trees with a spade and aruval - Sudden fight between 
accused and deceased - Accused snatched the aruval and 
assaulted deceased with it- Courts below held accused guilty 
under s.302· - Accused pleading applicability of Exception 4 D 
of s.300 - Held: On facts, Exception 4 to s.300 applicable -
Appropriate conviction would be under s. 304 Part-I and not 
s.302 - Conviction altered accordingly. 
Prosecution case was that there· was litigation 
between the deceased and his son accused which was 
E 
decided in favour of deceased. On the day of occurrence, 
PW-1\ wife· of' other son of deceased, was going to the 
garden where deceased was cutting trees·. He· was 
having a spade and aruval ·in his hand. At that time, the 
accused came there and questioned as to why he was 
F 
cutting the trees, and following the same, there was a 
Wordy duel. Immediately, the accused snatched the aruval 
and attacked the deceased on the neck and shoulder 
indiscriminately. PW-1 on seeing this, raised alarm, and 
\ 
immediately, the accused fled away from the place of G 
occurrence. As a result, deceased died. Trial Court 
convicted accused under s.302 IPC, which was affirmed 
by High Court. 
.... 
In the instant appeal, the substantive plea related to 
H 
1151 
1152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A the applicability of Exception 4 of s.300 IPC. 
Partly allowing the appeal, t_he Court 
HELD:1.1. For applicability of Exception 4 of s.300 
IPC, it has to be established that the act was committed 
B 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 
J. ' 
a cruel or unusual manner. The said exception deals with 
'\ 
a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, 
c 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-
control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of 
D passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges 
,. 
them to do 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 
provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in 
E 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 th~ 
subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect 
of guilt upon equal footing. [Paras 7 and 8) [1156-G-H; 
~ 
F 1157-A-C] 
1.2. 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. Fo·r 
G 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 
.,. 
H aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken 
,_
. , 
-
A. MAHARAJA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
1153 
the serious turn it did. It is to be noted that the fight' 
A 
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 
B 
altercation in the beginning. 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. [Para 8] [1157-D, E, G, H; c 
1158-A] , 
1.3. 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 
D 
cruel or unusual manner. The expressi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.