Summary
The Supreme Court altered the appellant’s murder conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC and imposed twelve years’ imprisonment. On these facts, briefly going to the immediately adjoining house for a weapon did not split the ongoing quarrel into separate incidents. The single fatal blow followed a stick blow to the appellant during the same sudden fight, and the Court found the requirements of Exception 4 to Section 300 satisfied.
Issues
- Whether the continuous quarrel and fatal blow attracted the sudden-fight exception and a reduced offence.
Held
- Exception 4 requires absence of premeditation, a sudden fight in the heat of passion, and no undue advantage or cruel or unusual conduct. A sudden quarrel alone is insufficient. (¶ 12–13)
- The houses were adjacent and there was no intervening time gap. The return with a gupti was part of the same continuing incident, unlike the cited case involving departure by motorcycle and a later return. (¶ 14–15)
- Considering the preceding stick blow, heat of passion and single injury, the Court applied Exception 4 and substituted Section 304 Part II for Section 302. (¶ 15–16)
Result
Appeal partly allowed; murder conviction altered to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence fixed at twelve years’ imprisonment.