7. Now, we come to the issue whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC will apply in this case. There are many material circumstances which militate against the theory of applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Firstly, the appellant was not involved in earlier two incidents which occurred when co-accused tried to pluck fruits. When the appellant visited the house of the deceased, the appellant was carrying his licensed gun. He went there with the object of questioning the act of the deceased. Therefore, there was no reason for the appellant to carry his licensed gun with him. Secondly, he fired the licensed gun through the window of the house of the deceased, which led to the death of the deceased who was inside the house. If there was no premeditation, the appellant would have not carried his gun with him to the house of the deceased. It cannot be said that there was a sudden quarrel as there was a background of quarrel which took place on the same day between the co-accused and the deceased and, on the earlier day between the same co-accused and the deceased. Moreover, it cannot be said that the appellant did not act in a cruel manner. In the facts of the case, as narrated above, only after a trifle quarrel over plucking of fruits, the appellant fired a gunshot from the window of the house of the deceased.
