Kashi Prasad versus State of Uttar Pradesh

Murder/culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Applicability of Exception 4 to s.300 !PC - Held: There was no enmity between the parties prior to the incident - In the course of quarrel, accused gave blow to the deceased - In the D facts and circumstances of the case, the proper conviction would be under s.304 Part I !PC and not under s.302 rlw s. 34 /PC - Custodial sentence altered to 10 years - Directions issued.

¶13

Exceptions 1 and 4 to s. 300 !PC - Distinction between. Words and Phrases:

¶14

E

¶15

·

¶16

'sudden fight' and 'undue advantage' - Meaning of

¶17

According to _the prosecution, on the fateful day, F when the first informant along with his parents was returning home after ploughing the field, his bullocks strayed into the field of accused, the appellant and damaged his field. Appellant abused PW1 and his father. When PW1 asked the accused-appellant to stop abusing them, the accused· and his accomplice gave a spear blow on G him. In defence, PW1 also assaulted the accused persons, as a result of which they also sustained injuries. PW1 put his injured father in ti1e bullock cart who took his last breath on the way to police station. An FIR was

7"-

1090

H

1091 '

KASHI PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

¶23

t

¶24

lodged by PW1 against the accused persons. Police made A investigation and after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet. Trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under s.302 r/w s.34 and S.323 r/w s. 34 IPC. The appeal preferred thereagainst by the convicts was dismissed by the High Court. B Hence the present appeal.

¶25

Accused-appellant contended that even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, the appellant cannot be convicted for offence under Se~tion 302 IPC. A single blow was given in course of a sudden quarrel. Therefore, C exception 4 to s. 300 IPC applies.

¶26

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

¶27

HELD: 1.1. On account of rainy season there was · ·¥ mud in the field with the result that four bullocks of the D informant entered the 1:ibutting field of the accused. The evidence on record shows that there was no pique or enmity between the parties prior to the incident ih qLestion. The appellant and his father became hypersensitive and felt hurt and quarrel thereafter started and in course I E of the quarrel a blow was given by the ,appellant. (Para - 6) (1096 G-H, 1097 A]

¶28

E :/

¶29

1.2 The only question is applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. For bringing in its operation it has to · be established that the act was committed without pre-' F meditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage nd not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner (Paras ...:. 7 & 8) [1097 A-8]

¶30

1.3 The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of 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

¶31

G

¶32

H

¶33

1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 10 S.C.R.

-t

~ .~ ',

I

"4:· • f (

f

A both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is

¶41

....... """'~

¶42

·s^{provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1but the in-} jury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. (Para - 9) [1097 C-E] ·

¶43

1.4 A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and b.lows on each side. The homicide committed is then c clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placedpn one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1 to S.300. (Para - 9) [1097-F]

¶44

1.5 For the application of Exception 4, it is not suffiD cient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' E^{as used in the provision means'unfair advantage'. (Para-} 9) [1098 0-E]

¶45

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the proper conviction would be under Section 304 Part 1 IPC and custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the F^{ends of justice. (Para -10) [1098-F]}

¶46

T

¶47

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2003

¶48

From the final Judgment and Order dated 26.7.2001 of G^{the High Court of Judicature at AllahabadinCriminal Appeal} No. 293 of 1981

¶49

Ajay Bhalla, Abhinav Jain, Sunita Rani Singh and Abha R. Sharma for the Appellant.

¶50

Anil K. Jha and Vijay Pratap Singh for the Respondent.

H

d

t-

KASHI PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTAR 1093 PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶56

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶57

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding the appellant guilty .of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶58

A

¶59

B

¶60

The appellant and his father Baidu had filed the appeal before the High Court questioning the correctness of the conviction and imposition of sentence as done by the learned Ses- c sions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No.287 of 1980. The appellant's father Baidu died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and, therefore, the appeal stood abated so far as he is concerned.

-..,.-

,,.

D

The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:

¶65

Kali Charan, first informant (PW-1), his father Lachhi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and his mother Smt. Ram Kunwar were returning after ploughing the land of Chandra E ' Bhan with their bullocks on 28. 7.1980 through the village pathway which was running from western to eastern side as shown in the site plan. The land of Pandit Laxman Prasad resident of village Mas Gaon is towards the northern side of the village pathway. This land was with the accused persons on share crop F basis. On account of existence of mud on the village pathway, the bullocks of Kali Charan, first informant strayed into the field of accused Kashi Prasad. The accused persons became agitated on account of damage caused by the bullocks in their field and consequently they abused Kali Charan and his father Lach hi Ram. Latter took exception to it and asked the accused to reG train from abusing. Accused Kashi Prasad dealt the deceased Lachhi Ram with a blow by a spear. Lachhi Ram fell on the ground. Baidu mounted an assault on the deceased with his lathi. Kali Charan also received lathi injuries. Kali Charan who was carrying a Khaulia used the same in defence of his father, H

¶66

H

¶67

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶68

[2008] 10 S.C.R.

¶69

1094

¶70

A as a result of which accused Kashi Prasad and Baidu received injuries. After making necessary arrangement, Lach hi Ram was put in a Bullock cart but he took his last breath an way to police station Kharela. The dead body was taken to police station where a written first information report, Exh.ka-2 was lodged by

¶71

B Kali Charan. The investigation was undertaken. The Autopsy Surgeon· Dr. G.S. Pandey (PW-5) found the following ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased Lachhi Ram:

¶72

C

¶73

D

¶74

st~b wound 1 cm x 1 cm in front of abdomen 4 cm from ambilicus at its level and right side. Skin, muscles, peritoneum, loops of large intestine pierces and finally entering the right side of kidney, which is done in pieces. There is plenty of blood and blood clots seen in peritoneal cavity. Contents of large intestines are mixed in pool of blood in cavity.

¶75

Contusion 7cm x 2cm in right side forearm in postero lateral aspect the underlying radio ulna fractured at lower 1;3rd.

¶76

E

¶77

Lac~rated wound 5cm x 1 cm x bone deep in right parietal prominence direction front to back.

¶78

Contusion 5cm x 1 % cm in right side of forehead at upper border front to back direction.

¶79

F

¶80

abraded contusion 6 % cm x 4 cm on right side of . chest in thoracic region in anterior auxillary line in 7th to 10th 1.C.S.

¶81

Contusion 4 %- cm x 2cm in left shoulder joint at acromian proce~s in laterial aspect.

¶82

G On the person of Kali Charan who was medically examined on 29. 7 .1980 by Dr. M .Y. Qureshi (PW-2) following nine injuries were found: l

¶83

1 . contused wound 2 cm x % cm on the left side of head 7 cm above ear. - -

.H

+-

)'

-,:-

.A--

	KASHI PRASAD_v._STATEOF UTTAR 1095 PRADESH[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT,J.]
2.	Abrasion 6cm x 2cmonthe right arm upper half outside.	A
3.	Swelling 7 cm x 3 cm over the right thigh.
4.	Abrasion 5.5 cm x 2cmonthe right arm upper half front.
5.	Abraded contusion 5 cm x 3 cmjustabove the shoulder blade.	B
6.	Swelling 7cm x 2cmontheleft index finger dorsal surface.
7.	Selling 2cm x 1 cm over the left thumb distal phalangal joint dorsum.	c
8.	Abraded contusion 5 cm x 2cm, 2cm outer to left right nipple.
9.	Abraded contusion 5 cm x 2cm on the left forearm half.
The	accused Kashi Prasad and Baidu who were taken in	D
custody Assistan received	were medically examined byDr.S.N. Dixit, (D.W.1) t Medical Officer, District Jail, Hamirpur, Kashi Prasad the following two injuries:
1.	Contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on left wrist joint radial aspect.
2:	Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on left arm middle part.	E
Bai	du had received following three injuries:
1.	Dressed wound 1/2cm x 1/2cm x bone deep on the left fore arm 3 cm above left wrist joint.	F
2.	Dressed wound 1 2/2 cm x%cm x muscle deep on the left hand dorsum 2 cm medical to web to left thumb.
3.	Lacerateo dressed wound 2cm.x 1cm x muscle deep on left hand just on base on index finger.	G
The termed t	injuries received by Kashi Prasad and Baidu were o be simple having been caused by some blunt object.
Att	he trial, Kali Charan (PW-1); Jhalli (PW-3) and Sukh
Lal (PW formal wi	-4) were examined as eye-witnesses besides other tnesses.	H

A

E

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 10 S.C.R.

1096

I --+^..

A The accused persons took the plea of self defence. According to Kali Prasad, Kali Charan and deceased-Lachhi Ram had deliberately driven their bullocks into field of the accused and on his intervention Lachhi Ram and Kali Charan began to abuse him and threatened him. He further stated that Kali B^{Charancaught holdof him and when he managed to release} himself from the clutches of Kali Charan, the deceased began to assault him with lathi and Kali Charan armed with a Khaulia rushed at him and th~r_eupon his father Baidu rushed to save him and thereafter Kali' Charan began to mount assault upon c^{Baidu with Khaulia. Kashi Prasad further stated that he used} spear to defend himself and his father Baidu and that he and Baidu both received injuries ;fod they were medically examined in the District Jail, Hamirpur. The accused Baidu took similar plea. The accused Maha Prasad pleaded alibi.

¶98

A

¶99

D

¶100

D The trial Coµ rt on consideration of the evidence on record came to hold that the plea of self defence raised by the accused was not made out and it was a case of murder of deceased. The accused also caused injuries on the informant. The High Court found no substance in the plea of accused apE^{pellants and dismissed the appeal.}

¶101

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the prosecution version is accepted in tote, the appellant can-· not be convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC. A single blow was given in course of a sudden quarrel. Therefore, exception 4 to Section 300 applies. ,;.'.l .

¶102

F

¶103

--;... -

¶104

I,-

¶105

·t-

¶106

Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court.

¶107

G

¶108

G 6. It appears that the bullocks of the informant Kali Charan strayed into the field of Chandra Bhan. On account of rainy season there was mud in the field with the result that four bullocks of the informant entered the abutting field of the accused. The evidence on record shows that there was no pique or enmity beH^{tween the parties prior to the incident inquestion. The appel-}

¶109

...-.,_

¶110

1097

¶111

KASHI PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

+-

j-

,, <

lant and his father Baidu became hypersensitive and felt hurt A and quarrel thereafter started and in course of the quarrel a blow was given by the appellant.

¶116

The only question is applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.

B

""'r

. .+---

For bringing in its operation 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 offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

¶121

-~

¶122

c

¶123

The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of 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 D of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury E done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which 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 F in respect 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 provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable G 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 would not have taken the serious turn ildid. There is H

¶124

[2008] 10 S.C.R.

¶125

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶126

' I l

¶127

1098

¶128

A then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or B unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion C requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down ,and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is no possible to enunciat~ any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a D question of fact and 'whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel an·d there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue E advantage 6r acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'.

¶129

Considering the factual scenario as projected by the F prosecution, the proper conviction would be under Section 30,4 Part 1 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice.

¶130

·r

¶131

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶132

S.K.S.

¶133

Appeal partly allowed.

Kashi Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashi Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Kerala State Electricity Board versus Chinamma Antony

State of Himachal Pradesh versus Shish Ram

Moti Lal versus State of M.P.

Kuldeep Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh

State of Punjab versus Kulwant Singh @ Kanta

Harijan Mangri Siddakka and Ors. versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.