SRIDHAR BHUYAN versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 09-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SRIDHAR BHUY AN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
AUGUST 9, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 302, 304 and 300 Exception 4-Murder-Evidence of 
eyewitnesses-Plea that offence was result of sudden quarrel and without C 
premeditation-Conviction by Courts below for murder-On appeal, 
conviction altered to Section 304 Part I as the case falls under Exception 
4 to Section 300. 
Section 300 Exception 4-Applicability of-Held: For application of 
the provision it is not sufficient to show that there was sudden quarrel and D 
there was no premeditation, but must be farther shown that offender did 
not take undue advantage or acted in cruel and unusual manner. 
Words and Phrases : 
'Undue advantage' and 'sudden fight'-Meaning of 
Appellant-accused was charged for murder. Prosecution case was 
that the deceased, with a view to settle down issue regarding eve-
teasing of his relative by brother of the appellant had gone to his house • 
E 
. When the appellant refused to come along for settlement, quarrel 
ensued. Appellant took out a knife from his house and stabbed the F 
deceased. He succumbed to the injuries. Trial Court relying on 
evidence of three eye-witnesses, held the accused guilty of the offence 
and convicted him u/s 302 IPC. High Court, though accepted that there 
was quarrel, yet upheld the conviction. 
On appeal, appellant contended that his case fell under Exception 
4 to Section 300 IPC as the assaults were made in course of a quarrel. 
Partly ;allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. The help of Exception 4 ofs.300 IPC can be invoked H 
395 
396 
STJPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 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. [399-8-C) 
B 
1.2. 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 cool down and 
in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account 
of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between 
C 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. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that 
D 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'. [399-C-E) 
2. The present case is not covered under Section 302 IPC. The 
E ingredients necessary to bring in application of Exception 4 to Section 
300 IPC are present. The conviction is altered to Section 304 Part I 
IPC. (399-F) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
F 826 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.2002 of the Orissa High 
Court in Crl. A. No. 219189. 
M.K. Sapra, Kanwar Sapra, 8. Aggarwala, Saurav Srivastava and 
G Rajiv Mehta for the Appellant. 
Shibashish Misra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted. 
SRIDHAR BHUYAN v. STATE OF ORISSA [PASAYAT, J.] 
397 
A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court confirmed conviction of A 
the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 (in short the 'I.P.C.') and sentence of imprisonment for life 
as awarded by Learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada. 
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : 
On 21.8.1988, Umakant (brother of the appellant) teased Jayanti, the 
niece of Chintamani Rout (PW-I), father of the Pratap (hereinafter referred 
B 
to as the 'deceased'). On 22.8.1988 Pratap complained about the previous 
incident to his father (PW-I) who asked him to wait till the arrival of 
Jayanti's father who was away from the village. In the evening when C 
Jayanti' s father returned home, the deceased along with Jayanti 's father 
and Benudhar Rout (PW-5) went to the house of the appellant to ascertain 
the reason 

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