LexRAKESH versus STATE OF M.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAKESH v. STATE OF M.P. 677 matter and placed charge-sheet against the appellant and A others for committing offences punishable u/s.302 r/w S.34 IPC. In appeal, conviction of other accused persons was altered but the conviction of the accused-appellant was maintained by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that the evidence does not .B establish his guilt; that even if prosecution version is accepted in toto, offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out; and that since the occurrence took place in the course of a sudden quarrel, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is attracted. C Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 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 D -' in the 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 - 6) [681-A, B] 1.2 The Fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said Exception deals with E 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 both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self- F 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 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that G provocation. (Para - 7) [681-B, C, D] 1.3 In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in H ....... 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. A whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the r"' 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 B provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. t (Para - 7) [681-D, E, F] · 1.4 To bring a case within Exception 4 to Section 300 c all the in9redients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the "fight" occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no · time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the ~ D parties have worked themselves into a fury on account· of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a ;_ combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any " ' general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden c ~ E quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case.· (Para - 7) [682-A, 8, C] 1.5 For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show. that there was a sudden quarrel and F that there was no premeditation~ It must further be shown ~ ~ that the ·offender has not taken undue advantage or acted l in cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in the provision means "unfair advantage". (Para - 7) [682-C, D] G Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 4 SCC 653 and Thankachan & Anr. v. State of Kera/a (2007) 11 SCR 1128 - relied on. 2. In the background of the principles of law, as H indicated, the appropriate conviction would be in terms 'f RAKESH v. STATE OF M.P. 679 [PASAYAT, J.] ""-1 of Section 304 Part I IPC, and custodial sentence of 1 O A years would meet the ends of justice. (Para - 9) [682-E, F] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICITON: Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order 10.07.2006 of the High B Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal i No. 382/2000. Raj iv Talwar and Parmanand for the Appellant. Govind Goel, C.D. Singh, M.P. Singh, Vairagya Vardhan, c Sunny Chowdhary, Ram Naresh Yadav and Navin Sharnia for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.