LexKASHI PRASAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2008] 10 S.C.R. 1090 KASHI PRASAD v. I • STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2003) JULY 16, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHAR~A, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860; S.302 rlw s. 34, S.323 rlw s. 34 and Exception 4 to s. 300 and s. 304 Part-I: Murder/culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Applicability of Exception 4 to s.300 !PC - Held: There was no enmity between the parties prior to the incident - In the course of quarrel, accused gave blow to the deceased - In the facts and circumstances of the case, the proper conviction would be under s.304 Part I !PC and not under s.302 rlw s. 34 /PC - Custodial sentence altered to 10 years - Directions is- sued. Exceptions 1 and 4 to s. 300 !PC - Distinction between. Words and Phrases: 'sudden fight' and 'undue advantage' - Meaning of According to _the prosecution, on the fateful day, when the first informant along with his parents was re- turning home after ploughing the field, his bullocks strayed into the field of accused, the appellant and dam- aged his field. Appellant abused PW1 and his father. When PW1 asked the accused-appellant to stop abusing them, the accused· and his accomplice gave a spear blow on him. In defence, PW1 also assaulted the accused per- sons, as a result of which they also sustained injuries. PW1 put his injured father in ti1e bullock cart who took his last breath on the way to police station. An FIR was 1090 ------- ~ 7"- t ' '- I >· t KASHI PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1091 ' lodged by PW1 against the accused persons. Police made A investigation and after completing the investigation sub- mitted the charge-sheet. Trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under s.302 r/w s.34 and S.323 r/w s. 34 IPC. The appeal preferred there- against by the convicts was dismissed by the High Court. B Hence the present appeal. Accused-appellant contended that even if the pros- ecution version is accepted in toto, the appellant cannot be convicted for offence under Se~tion 302 IPC. A single blow was given in course of a sudden quarrel. Therefore, C exception 4 to s. 300 IPC applies. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. On account of rainy season there was · ·¥ mud in the field with the result that four bullocks of the D informant entered the 1:ibutting field of the accused. The evidence on record shows that there was no pique or enmity between the parties prior to the incident ih qLes- tion. The appellant and his father became hypersensitive and felt hurt and quarrel thereafter started and in course E I of the quarrel a blow was given by the ,appellant. (Para - :/ 6) (1096 G-H, 1097 A] 1.2 The only question is applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. For bringing in its operation it has to · be established that the act was committed without pre-' F meditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken un- due advantage ~nd not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner~ (Paras ...:. 7 & 8) [1097 A-8] 1.3 The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with G 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 principle, for in H 1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. -t A both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-con- trol, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of pas- sion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is ....... """'~ ·s provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1 but the in- jury done is not the direct consequence of that provoca- tion. (Para - 9) [1097 C-E] · ~ .~ ', 1.4 A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and b.lows on each side. The homicide committed is then c clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placedpn one side. For .... if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1 to S.300. (Para - 9) [1097-F] I D 1.5 For the application of Exception 4, it is not suffi- "4:· • cient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there f was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.