suppressed and the deceased and others by going to the area of the appellant, attacked him. This aspect gets more significance when prosecution itself got no case that originally there was any weapon with the appellant or any other person. It is also pointed out that even when the charge was filed, prosecution got no case that all the accused were equipped with weapon, even though in Ext.P1, PW1 was having a case that they were equipped with iron rod, stone etc. If the deceased and others are the aggressors and when the injury sustained to the accused, as evident from Ext.D3, is not explained, it can only be inferred that it is a case where the appellant got the private defence. It is also the submission of the counsel for the appellant that when the Doctor is not deposing that the injury sustained is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course the intention to murder cannot be inferred by the court. At the most, the court can infer the knowledge, that means the conviction can be only under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Thereafter, the learned counsel submitted that if the court is not convinced about the private defence, then it is a case under Section 304 Part II IPC. It is the submission made before us that in a case of Section 300, Exception (4) will come into play. As per Section 300 Exception (4), it can be seen that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken
