LexGALI VENKATAIAH versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A GALI VENKAT AIAH v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH NOVEMBER 12, 2007 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA. T AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.j , Penal Code, 1860: ss. 304 (Part I) and 300 Exception 4-Murde~, in the course of C sudden quarrel-Seen by wife and sons of deceased-Conviction uls 302 !PC by courts below-On appeal, held: In view of the fact that the assault was in course of sudde.n quarrel, conviction altered to one D under s. 304 (Part I). , - s. 300 Exception 4-Applicability of-When-Discussed. s. JOO-Exception 1 and 4-Distinction between. Evidence-Related witness-Evidentiary value of-Held: Relationship is not a factor to effect credibility of a witness-However, E in such cases court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out credibility thereof-Criminal Trial. Words and Phrases- 'Sudden fight' and 'undue advantage'- Meaning of-In the context of s. 300 !PC. F Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having killed his brother. Prosecution case was that the accused was having strained relations with the deceased. He assaulted the deceased with a knife, which resulted in his death. The incident was seen by wife of the deceased (PW 1) and his sons (PW s 2 and 3). Trial Court convicted the accused G u/s 302 ralying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses (PWs 1 to 3). H High Court confirmed the conviction. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the eye- witnesses being related, could'not have been relied upon; and that 1030 ;- ~ '----< -'( I· I )._ r I rf }--- l ' GALI VENKA TAIAH v. STATE 1031 y 'f the assault was made in the course of sudden quarrel. A Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. B -# Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such (· cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. [Para 7] [1034-D, E] Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; c Guli Chand and Ors. v. State ofRajasthan, [1974] 3 SCC 698; Vadivelu Thevar v. State of ~Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP., AIR (1965) SC 202; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, AIR (1973) SC 2407; Lehna v. State of Haryana, [2002] 3 SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa, [2002] 8 SCC 381; D >-· Babula! Bhagwan Khandare and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, [2005] 10 SCC 404 and Salim Saheb v. State of MP., [2007] 1 SCC 699, relied on. 2.1. In the factual background of the case, the appropriate conviction would be in terms of Section 304 Part I IPC. It appears E from the evidence of the witnesses that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was strained and much before th~ assault was made, there was exchange of hot words between the accused and the deceased and they were quarrelling with each other. [Paras 18 and 14] [1037-G; 1036-C] F r ' ,:» 2.2. For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that the act was committed 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 a cruel or unusual manner. [Para 15] (1036-D, E] G '\'"" ' \ 2.3. The help of Exception 4 can 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 person H 1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A killed. [Para 16] [1037-B, C] 2.4. In the present case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as B 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. 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 C offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as use
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.