LexBABAN BANDU PATIL versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 6 S.C.R. 172 • A SABAN BANDU PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 1312 of 2007) B APRIL 15, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ] Penal Code, 1860 : c ·- s. 304 (Part /) - Prosecution ulss. 302 and 324 rlw s. 34 - Of the accused alongwith six co-accused - conviction of accused by courts below - co-accused acquitted - On appeal, Held: On facts, appropriate convictions would be u/s 304 (Part- D /). s.300 Exception 1 and 4 -Applicability of and distinction between - Discussed. Words and Phrases - "Sudden fight" - Meaning of, in E the context of /PC. Seven accused, including the appellant, were prosecuted for causing death of one and for causing injuries to others. Trial Court convicted three of' the F accused u/s. 302 and 324 r/w s.34 IPC, placing reliance on the ocular evidence of PWs 1, 5 and 9, while acquitted four of the accused. In appeal, High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused while acquitting the two accused. G In appeal to this Court, appP•lant contl?nded that in view of the factual scenario that ti" _ dispute arose over " petty matter and the blow was given in the course of sudden quarrel, the case is not relatable to s.302 IPC. H 172 BABAN BANDU PATIL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 173 ' Partly allowing the· appeal, the Court A HELD:1.1. Considering the background facts it would be appropriate to convict the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. [Para 8] 1.2. PW 1, PW 5 and PW 9 had stated about the B assaults made. All the three witnesses did not speak about the assaults on the deceased by the accused. P.W- 5 did not witness the assault on the deceased as well as PW-1's evidence is relevant so far as assault on himself is concerned. PW-S's evidence is of considerable c importance. According to him while he was returning to his house he saw quarrel and the manner of assault by the appellant. [Para 5] [179-0-F] 2.1. For bringing in operation Exception 4 to Section D 300 IPC it has to be established that the act was committed without premediation, 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] [179-F-G] E 2.2. The Fourth Exception of Section 300, IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with 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 F principle, for in both there is absence of premediation. 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 reasons and urges them to deeds which they would not G " • otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Excepti()n 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 'H 174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. [Para 7] [179-G-H; 180-A-C] B 2.3. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premediation, (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 C within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. 'Fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. 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 D whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. [Para 7] [180- E-G; 181-A] 2.4. A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and E 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. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation F or determination to fight. [Para 7] [180-C-D] Dhir
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.