LexTRIMBAK versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 3 S.C.R. 804 TRIM BAK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2008) MARCH 4, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.300 Exception 4, s.302 and s.304 Part I- Sudden fight C between accused and deceased - Accused assaulted deceased with axe lying nearby- Wife of deceased intervened and she was a/so given blow with axe on head - Courts below held accused guilty under ss. 302 and 324 -Accused pleading applicability of Exception 4 of s.300 - Held: Considering D factual background, appropriate conviction would be under s. 304 Part-I and not under s. 302 - Conviction altered accordingly. s.302-App/icability of, when single blow given - Held: It E is not rule of universal application that whenever one blow is given, s. 302 is ruled out - It would depend upon the weapon used, the size and force with which blow was given, part of body on which it was given and several other factors. F s. 300 Exception 4 - Invocation of- Essential ingredients. Words and phrases: 'fight', 'sudden fight', 'undue advantage' - Meaning of - In the context of Exception 4 to s.300 /PC. The prosecution case was that the accused and · G deceased were present in the field. There were verbal exchanges between the accused and deceased. Thereafter accused picked up the axe which was lying t ~ nearby and he assaulted deceased with the said axe on ~· the head. When wife of deceased rushed forward to H 804 TRIMBAK v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 805 • ' intervene, the accused gave a blow with the axe on her A • head. On account of assault, deceased died on the spot and his wife sustained bleeding injuries. The trial court convicted the accused for the offences under ss.302 and 324 IPC, however acquitted him of the offence under s.307 IPC. High Court affirmed the judgment of trial court. B "" In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the ~ deceased lost his life in the course of sudden quarrel and ' that there was no premeditation and that the accused had not taken advantage and had also not acted in a cruel c . manner; that only one blow was allegedly given after picking up the axe; that prior to that he was not armed and in any event only one blow was given. In essence it was submitted that s.302 IPC would not apply and Exception 4 of s.300 IPC applied. D ~ Partly allowing the appeal, the Court ~· HELD : 1. For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to s.300 IPC, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the E offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. [Para 9) [810-B] 2. The fourth exception to s, 300 IPC covers acts done .;-'t in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of F 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-control, in G case of E~eption 4, there is only that heat of passion . . . which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to do .. ~ 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 H 806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. / •· A provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which lo notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect B 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 r provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be 1 placed on one side. For if it were so, the exception more c appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it D would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.