LexKULESH MONDAL versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KULESH MONDAL A v. THE STA TE OF WEST BENGAL SEPTEMBER 7, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND D.K.JAIN,JJ.) B Penal Code, I 860: s.300, Exception 4-Applicability of- Held: For application of Exception 4, it is not sz!fficient to show that ther<? was a sudden quarrel af!d there was C no premeditation-It must further be shown that the offender did not take undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. s.300, Exception 4, ss.304 Part I and 302-Fatal blow on neck with a sharp edged weapon in course of sudden fight-Courts below convicted accused under s.302-0n facts, held: Exception 4 to s.300 is applicable- D Offence relatable to s.304 Part I and not s.302. s.300, Exception I and 4-Distinction between-Explained. Evidence: Evidence of close relative-Cannot be rejected on the sole ground of it being partisan. Discrepancy in evidence-Normal discrepancy and material discrepancy-Distinction between-Stated. Words and Phrases-"Fight'~ "sudden fight" and "undue advantage"- Meaning of-Jn the context of Exception 4 to s.300, /PC. E F According to the prosecution, in course of a quarrel, the brother of Appellant dragged the deceased to the place of incident whereafter Appellant delivered a fatal blow on his neck with 'Basua', a sharp edged weapon. Trial G Court convicted Appellant under s.302 IPC. High Court upheld the conviction. In appeal to this Court, the conviction of Appellant was challenged on th~ ground that the eye-witnesses were related to the victim and hence their 799 II 800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R. A evidence could not be believed and that since only a single blow was given in the course of quarrel, s.302 IPC had no application. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: 1. The ground that the witnesses being close relatives and B consequently being partisan witnesses, should not be relied upon, has no substance. (Para 7) (804-E) Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; Masalti and Ors. v. The 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 and C State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr., AIR (1981) SC 1390, relied on. 2. Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest· and truthful a witness may be. D Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected ofa normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. [Para 9] (805-D-E] E Krishna Machi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc., JT (2002) 4 SC 186, relied on. 3.1. 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 F taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. (Para l l) (805-F] 3.2. The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. G 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-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 in Exception 4 as in Exception l; but the H injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception KULESHMONDALv. STATE 801 ""- 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, A or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. 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 B be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Excepti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.