NANDLAL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 15-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
199
NANDLAL
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2019)
MARCH 15, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY , JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302/34 or s.304 Part II – Conviction
under – Prosecution case that there was exchange of abuse between
the two parties over expenses of the construction of wall – Victim
and his brother tried to pacify the parties – However, they were not
able to control the situation – Appellant, accused No.2 & 3 caused
injuries to the victim – Victim died – Trial court convicted all three
accused u/s.302/34 of IPC – High Court held that only appellant
caused fatal injuries to the victim and affirmed his conviction and
acquitted accused No.2 & 3 – Appellant contended that incident
occurred in a sudden quarrel and after he was attacked by PW-1 –
In a sudden fight, appellant went to his house and came back and
attacked the victim – Appellant further contended that he had no
intention to commit murder of victim, hence the case falls within
Exception 4 to s.300 of IPC – Held: Appellant rightly contended
that the incident was in a sudden quarrel and there was no
premeditation – One of the conditions of Exception 4 is that the
offender ought not to have taken the “undue advantage” or acted
in a cruel or unusual manner – Appellant inflicted a single blow
injury with gupti which pierced into the lung of the victim – After
having sustained a stick blow from PW-1, in the sudden quarrel
and in the heat of passion, the appellant inflicted injury on victim –
Thus, the case falls within the Exception 4 to s.300 – Accordingly,
the conviction of appellant-accused u/s.302 IPC modified as s.304
Part II IPC.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the light of the settled principles, this Court
has to consider whether facts of the present case fall under
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC or not?  PW-1/complainant is the
real brother of victim-deceased  and ‘D’ and the appellant is the
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 199
199
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
cousin brother of their father. The house of the appellant and the
house of ‘D’ are adjacent to each other and ‘D’ constructed a
common wall between his premises and the house of the appellant
and there was a dispute between them in sharing the expenses
of the construction of wall and this became the reason for frequent
quarrels between the parties. On the date of occurrence, there
was an exchange of abuse between ‘D’, his wife PW-4 and the
appellant. PW-5, son of ‘D’ called PW-1. Accordingly, PW-1 and
his brother victim went to the house of ‘D’ and tried to pacify the
situation which could not be controlled. In that process,  victim
abused the appellant who got annoyed and assaulted victim with
stick on his back. On seeing this, PW-1 gave a stick blow on the
head of the appellant. It was thereafter, the appellant went to his
house and returned back armed with gupti and other accused
and inflicted injury with gupti on the left armpit of victim. The
above incident happened only after the exchange of abuse and
the stick blow given by PW-1 on the head of the appellant. As
noted above, the dispute between the appellant and ‘D’ was due
to construction of a common wall and non-sharing of expenses.
The house of the appellant, being the next house of ‘D’, there
was no time gap between the first incident and the incident that
followed, in which the appellant inflicted gupti injury on the left
armpit of the victim. Both the incidents cannot be said to be two
different parts but are integral part of the same incident.
[Para 14][205-F-H; 206-A-C]
2.  It is rightly contended by the appellant, the incident was
in a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. One of the
conditions of Exception 4 is that the offender ought not to have
taken the “undue advantage” or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner. The appellant inflicted a single blow injury with gupti on
the left armpit which pierced through the upper end of the left
arm and then entered the chest causing fracture of fourth rib and
reached till the lung causing rupture of left lung vasculature.
Though, the gupti was a dangerous weapon, the appellant-accused
caused a single injury which pierced into the lung. Having
sustained a stick blow from PW-1, in the sudden quarrel and in
the heat of passion, the appellant inflicted the injury on victim-
deceased. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction
A
B
C

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