GHAPOO YADAV AND ORS. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 17-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
~ 
GHAPOO YADA V AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
FEBRUARY 17, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 148"149, Exception 4 to Section 300: 
Deceased succumbed to injuries inflicted by accused in a sudden c 
quarrel-Trial Court convicted accused under Section 300 rlw Section 149-
Upheld by High Court-On appeal, Held: Though one of the injuries was held 
to be of grievous nature, there is no material to show that injury was inflicted 
when the deceased was in helpless condition-Besides assaults were made at 
random and it was not the case of the prosecution that accused came prepared 
for attacking the deceased-Under the facts and circumstances of the case, D 
causing of such injury could not be termed to be either in a cruel or unusual 
manner but in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel-Hence, Exception 
JV to Section 300 /PC attracted--Conviction and sentence modified accordingly. 
Exception I & IV to Section 300 /PC-Distinction between-Discussed 
E 
According to the prosecution, there was an altercation regarding 
cutting of trees on the disputed land between the deceased, his brother 
..... 
(PW2) and father (PWl) on the one side and accused, his three sons and 
nephew on the other. The accused persons assaulted the deceased and also 
threatened his brother and father. A complaint was lodged by the father 
F 
of the deceased and the deceased was admitted in a hospital in injured 
condition where his dying declaration was recorded. He succumbed to his 
injuries on the next day. 
Trial Court found the accused persons guilty and convicted and 
sentenced them under Section 148 and 302 r/w Section 149 IPC. In appeal, G 
High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal • 
.. 
It was contended for the appellant that since the injuries caused by 
the appellant on the deceased were in the course of sudden quarrel without 
premeditation and without cruel intent, Exception IV to Section 300 IPC 
.. 
was attracted. 
H 
,) 
69 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. To bring a case within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC 
all the ingredients mentioned therein must be found. The 'fight' occurring 
in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not d~fined in the IPC. It takes two 
to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for 
B the passion to cool down. 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 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 
C 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 cruel or unusual manner. The 
expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair 
advantage'. [73-F, G, H; 74-A, BJ 
D 
1.2. In the instant case, out of the seven injuries, only injury No.2 
was held to be of grievous nature, which was sufficient in the ordinary 
course of nature to cause death of the deceased. The infliction of the 
injuries, and their nature proves the intention of the accused appellants, 
but causing of such injuries cannot be termed to be either in a cruel or 
unusual manner. After the injuries were inflicted the injured has fallen 
E down, but there is no material to show that thereafter any injury was 
inflicted when he was in helpless condition. The assaults were made at 
random. Even the previous altercations were verbal and not physical. It 
is not the case of the prosecution that the accused appellants had come 
prepared and armed for attacking the deceased. This goes to show that 
F in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel followed by a fight the 
accused persons had caused injuries on the deceased, but not acted in cruel 
or unusual manner. That being so, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is 
clearly applicable. [74-B, C, DJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
G 229 of 2003. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.200 I of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in Crl. A. No. 718 of 1989. 
L.N. Gupta for the Appellants. 
I 
I~ 
... 
• 
.. 
-
GHAPOO YADAV v. STATE OF M.P. [ARIJIT PASA YAT, J.] 
71 
R.P. Gupta, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Sanjeev Kumar and Ms. Vaneet

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