PAPPU versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 11-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PAPPU 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
JULY 11. 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND S.H. KAPADIA. JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 300, Exception 4-Sudden quarrel betll'een complainants' side 
C and acc11sed persons-One of the accused giving a single lat hi blow on head 
of his opponent and another causing injuries on his left hand-Injured died 
the following day in hospital-Conviclion by trial court u/s 30213./-High 
Co11rt convicting one accused uls 302 and anolher u/s 323-Remaining accused 
acq11it1ed-Appeal by life convic1-Plea of applicability of Exception-4 to 
D S. 300 raised-Held, it would be appropriate lo convict appel/a/1/-accused 11/ 
s 30./ (Part ff)-lngredienrs of Exceprion-./ ro S.300 explained. 
In a marriage in a village an altercation and exchange of hot words 
took place between complainant and his father on the one side and the 
accused on the other. Suddenly, accused 'P' gave a lathi blow on the head 
E of the father of the complainant. Another accused 'M' is also said to have 
caused injury on his left hand. The incident was witnessed by the 
complainant (PW2), wife of the injured (PW3) and (PWS). The injured 
was taken to the Primary Health Center. The doctor (PW 6) prepared the 
medical report and as the injured was in coma, referred him to the District 
F Hospital where the injured died the following day. Accused 'P', 'M' and 
three others were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 302/ 
34, 294/34 and 506(2)/34 IPC. The trial court convicted them u/s 302/34 
IPC. On appeal, the High Court held that conviction of accused 'M' u/s 
302/34 IPC was not maintainable and convicted him u/s 323 IPC. 
Conviction of accused 'P' was altered from one u/s 302/34 to S.302 IPC. 
G The remaining accused were acquitted. Aggrieved, the life convict filed 
the present appeal. 
H 
It was contended for the appellant that the prosecution case indicates 
that only one lathi blow was given by the appellant in the course of a 
394 
PAPPU v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
395 
sudden quarrel and as there was no premeditation nor the accused took A 
any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner, the act attributed to 
the appellant falls under Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The help of Exception-4 to Section 300 IPC can be B 
invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; 
(c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel 
or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person 
killed. To bring a case within Exception-4 all the ingredients mentioned 
in it must be found to have been established. It is to be noted that the 'fight' c 
occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It 
takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion require~ that there must be no 
time for the passions to cool down and in this case, t~e parties have worked 
themselves into a fury on account of the verbal alter ation in the beginning. 
For the 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 D 
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'. (399-B-E) 
1.2. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that 
whenever one blow is giveq, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. It would depend E 
upon the weapon used, the size of it in some cases, force with which the 
blow was given, part of the body where it was given and several such 
relevant factors. [399-FJ 
1.3. Considering the factual background in the instant case it will 
F 
be appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 304 (part II) IPC, 
instead of Section 302 IPC as has been done by the trial court and affirmed 
by the High Court. Custodial sentence of eight years would meet the ends 
of justice. (399-G I 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appe~I No. 751 G 
of 2006. 
~' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.2005 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 590/2005. 
Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Appellant. 
H 
.. 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Siddhartha Dave and Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
,. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted. 
B 
Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of judgment rendere

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