accused by the said act. Admittedly, the deceased and the accused were neighbours and there was no enmity at all between the two families. They maintained cordial relationship. The problem arose because the brother's son of the accused had passed urine in front of the house of the deceased. This trivial incident had ultimately led into a major incident, in which the deceased had to lose his life. At 07.00 p.m., the accused had come to the house of the deceased and questioned the deceased and P.W.1 as to why they scolded his brother's son, who passed urine in front of their house. Afterall, his brother's son was a young boy. In continuation to the said quarrel, at 09.45 p.m., it was stated that the accused entered into the house of the deceased with a wooden reaper and attacked the deceased. In our view, the act of the accused would squarely fall within the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC. In our considered view, the accused would have had no intention at all to cause the death of the deceased, but he had intention to cause injuries, which were sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the act of the accused would squarely fall within the third limb of Section 300 IPC. As we have already pointed out, the occurrence was not premeditated. It was out of a quarrel, which had lasted for sometime. The accused has lost his patience. In that occurrence, the accused, without taking undue advantage, attacked the deceased by some kind of emotion and provocation. Thus, in our considered view, the act of the accused would fall within the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC and, therefore, he is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 304-I IPC. For having caused injury on P.W.1, the accused is liable to be punsihed for the offence under Section 324 IPC and for having trespassed into the house of the deceased, he is liable to punished for the offence under Section 451 IPC.
