LexSMT. SANDHYA JADHAV versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
SMT. SAND HY A JADHA V
v.
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA
MARCH 31, 2006
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302, 323 r!w Section 34 and 325 rlw Section
34:
Murder/Culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Sudden fight-
Single blow-Death--Exception 4 to Section 300-App/icability of-Held:
For application of Exception to Section 300, accused has to establish that
the act committed by him ·was without premeditation, in a sudden fight
between him and the deceased and he did not take undue advantage and not
D having acted in a cruel or unusual manner-{t cannoi be laid down as a rule
of universal application that whenever death occurs on account of single
blow. Section 302 IPC is ruled out-However. fact situation has to be
considered in each case-In the facts and circumstances of the case, Exception
4 to Section 300 !PC attracted-Hence, the conviction altered to Section 304
E
F
Part II /PC and custodial sentence reduced to 7 years.
Words and Phrases:
'Sudden fight' and 'undue advantage'--Meaning of in the context of
Exception 4 to Section 300 !PC.
According to the prosecution, appellant, the main accused and his
accomplice, were residing as tenants in the house owned by one of the prosecution
witnesses. On the fateful day, when the said witness (PW2)/landlord went to the
accused persons for collecting house rent, they assaulted him and when his
nephew, the deceased intervened the appellant delivered a knife blow on his back,
G later he succumbed to the injuries. On the complaint lodged by PW2 and the
brother of the deceased, police registered two separate reports. Investigation was
conducted and the accused persons were charge-sheeted for having committed
offences punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and u/s 324 read with
Section 34 IPC and so far as accused nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they were also
H
632
SANDHY A JADHAV v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
633
charged for having committed offence punishable u/s 323 read with Section 34 A
JPC. The trial Court found the accused persons guilty of the charges, convicted
and sentenced them accordingly. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction.
Hence the present appeal.
Appellants contended that even if the accusations of the prosecution are
accepted in toto, a case under Section 302 IPC is not made out, in view of the B
categorical findings recorded by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court
that the assaults were made in the course of a quarrel, and thus, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is applicable.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: I.I. To bring a case within Exception 4 to Section 300 all the
ingredients 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 the IPC. It takes two to make
a fight. Heat of passion .requires that there must be no time for the passions to
c
cool down and in the instant case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury D
on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between
two and 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 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. j636-F-GI
1.2. For the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, 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. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the
provision means 'unfair advantage'. The residual plea is that only a single blow
was given. Though it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that
whenever death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out,
the fact situation has to be considered in each case. 1636-H; 637-A; Cl
Sridhar Bhuyan v. State ofOrissa, JT (2004) 6 SC 299; Prakash Chandv.
E
F
State of H.P., JT (2004) 6 SC 302 and Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of Uttar G
Pradesh, JT (2004) 8 SC 534, referred to.
2. If the factual background is considered in the light of legal position, the
inevitable conclusion is that Exception 4 to Section 300 lPC has full application.
Hence, the conviction is altered to Section 304 Part II IPC insteadExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.