KOTIKALAPUDI SUBBA RAO versus STATE OF AP. & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 06-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 905 
KOTIKALAPUDI SUBBA RAO 
A 
v. 
STATE OF AP. & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 819 of 2008) 
• 
MAY 6, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH 
PANTA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 304-Part I and 307 - Appellant had borrowed some c 
money from deceased - When deceased asked Appellant to 
\ 
repay the amount and the latter denied, deceased slapped 
. 
him, on which Appellant allegedly threatened deceased that 
he would see his end - Next day, Appellant alongwith two other 
accused allegedly caused death of the deceased by attacking D 
him with knives and in the process grievously injured PW1 
who had intervened to rescue the deceased - Conviction of 
Appellant under ss 302 & 307 - Appellant sentenced to 
undergo RI for life for the first offence i.e. u/s.302 and RI for 5 
years for the second offence, i.e. u/s. 307 - Appeal against the 
E 
-I 
conviction and sentence - Held: In facts and circumstances 
of the case, appropriate conviction would be in terms of s.304 
Part I and not s.302 - Conviction and sentence under s.307 
upheld - Custodial sentence of 10 years in respect of the 
offence under s. 304 Part I - Both sentences to run concurrently. 
F 
s. 300, Exception 4 - Applicability of -
Held: For 
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 offender has not taken undue 
advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner - Expression G 
undue advantage' as used in the provision means ·unfair 
• 
advantage' . 
1 
.J. 
Words and Phrases - "fight and "undue advantage" -
Meaning of - In the context to s. 300, Exception 4. 
905 
H 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R 
A 
Appellant had borrowed some money from the 
deceased. When deceased asked Appellant to repay the 
amount and the latter denied, deceased slapped him, on 
which Appellant allegedly threatened the deceased that 
he would see his end. The next day, Appellant alongwith 
B two other accused, A2 and A3 allegedly caused death of 
the deceased by attacking him with knives and in the 
process grievously injured PW1 who had intervened to 
rescue the deceased. 
The Trial Court found the evidence of PW1, the injured 
C eye-witness, and two other witnesses, PWs2 and 3 credible 
and cogent and accordingly convicted Appellant alongwith 
A2 under s.302 !PC and A3 under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC. 
Appellant was further convicted under s.307 IPC. Appellant 
was sentenced to undergo RI for life for the first offence 
D i.e. u/s.302 IPC and RI for 5 years for the second offence, 
i.e. u/s.307 IPC. High Court 5et aside the conviction of A2 
and A3 but affirmed the conviction of Appellant. 
In support of the present appeal, it was submitted 
that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 could not be relied 
E upon. It was further submitted that even if the prosecution 
version was accepted in its entirety, a case under s.302 
IPC was not made out since the occurrence in question 
took place in course of a sudden quarrel and Exception 4 
to s.300, IPC was applicable. 
F 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. So far as the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 are 
concerned, the appellant was not able to point out any 
discrepancy or deficiency in their evidence to warrant 
G rejection of their evidence. The Trial Court and the High 
Court have rightly relied upon their testimony. £Para 8] 
[913-C, D] 
2.1. For bringin•; in operation of Exception 4 to 
H Section 300 l?C, it has tc be L:3tablished that ihe act was 
KOTIKALAPUDI SUBBA RAO v. STATE OF AP. & ANR. 
907 
_, 
committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the A 
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 10] [9 8-E, F] 
2.2. The Fourth Exception of Section 300, IPC covers 
B 
"" 
acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with 
a cas·e 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 
both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the 
case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self- c 
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 otherwise do. There 
is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the 
injury done is not the direct consequence

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