LexBANGARU VENKATA RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 11 S.C.R. 949 BANGARU VENKATA RAO A V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No.885 of 2005) AUGUST 5, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND G.S. SINGHVI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: . s. 304 (Part I) - Accused stabbed his wife in the abdo- men which resulted in her death. - Conviction under s.302 - c ., Plea by accused that there was sudden fight between accused and deceased and only single blow was given - Held: Con- sidering the factual background, the appropriate .conviction would be under s. 304 part I - Conviction altered accordingly. s.300 Exception 4 - Applicability of - Necessary ingre- D dients - Stated. Prosecution case was that accused stabbed his wife in the abdomen with a knife which resulted in her death. Trial Court convicted him under s.302 IPC. Before the High E Court the accused took stand that he committed the of- fence in private defence and therefore, his conviction under s.302 was not proper and that only one blow was given and there was no intention to kill the deceased. High Court did not find substance in the stands taken by the F accused and dismissed the appeal. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the evidence on record clearly established that there was sud- den quarrel between the accused and the deceased and single blow was given and, therefore, the conviction under G s.302 is not proper. In essence it was submitted that s.302 would not apply and Exception 4 of s.300 would apply. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 949 H 950 SUPREME .COURT REPORTS [2008]~11 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. The Fourth Exception of s.300 IPC cov- ers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The excep- tion is founded upon the same principle, for in both there B is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Ex- ception 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 reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation C 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 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 the subsequent conduct D of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. [Para 9] [955-A-D] E 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. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determi- nation to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of F them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did~ There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if G death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advan- tage 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 H be found. [Para 9] [955-D~G] r BANGARU VENKATA RAO v. STATE OF 951 ANDHRA PRADESH 'i 1.3. The ·•fight' occurring in Exception 4 to s. 300 IPC A 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 pas- sions 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 B ) 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 neces- sarily depend' upon the proved facts of each case. For the c application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden qu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.