(18) Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-mentioned judgment, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, the appellant and the deceased both were closely related to each other and dispute existed between them with regard to partition of the ancestral property, on account of which, on the date and time of offence, when the deceased was peeling the land owned by the appellant, the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased by giving single spade blow on his head, as proved by Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sartiya (PW-05) in his postmortem report (Ex.P/09). As such, there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, but only because of sudden quarrel, in anger and under heat of passion, the appellant assaulted the deceased, due to which he suffered grievous injuries and died. In that view of the matter, the appellant had knowledge as well as intention that such injuries inflicted by him on the body of the deceased would likely to cause his death, therefore, the act of the appellant herein would fall within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, as it completely satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv) the appellant had not taken any undue
