1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the materials available on record.
3. The appellant is convicted under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). The impugned
order of the High Court affirms his conviction under
Section 302 IPC.
4. In this appeal a limited notice was issued on
24.03.2025 to consider whether the appellant could be
convicted for an offence lesser than one punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC).
5. Autopsy report reflects that the deceased was
inflicted with four knife blows on vital parts of his
body of the deceased in ordinary course would have
resulted in death. No defense evidence was led; and
the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was one
of denial. Further, there was no statement that the
deceased had attacked the appellant or caused any
injury or harm to the appellant. In that context, we
would examine whether benefit of any one of the four
Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC would be available
to the petitioner or not.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the evidence indicated that the deceased was addicted
to drugs and loud shouts were heard before the
occurrence. Based on that, he submits, the incident
was preceded by altercation/ quarrel and, therefore,
it occurred in such a manner that it may fall either
under Exception 2 i.e., exceeding self-defense or
under Exception 4 i.e., without pre-meditation in a
sudden fight in the heat of passion. He also
submitted that the accused had suffered injury.
7. In our view, the act in question would not fall under
Exception 2 because, firstly, there is no evidence to
show that the accused or his property was attacked by
the deceased. Even in his statement under Section 313
CrPC no plea of self-defense or of deceased causing
any injury to the appellant was raised. Besides, no
defense evidence was led. Further, it is not shown
that the deceased was armed. In such circumstances,
in our view, benefit of Exception 2 would not be
available to the petitioner.
8. As far as Exception 4 is concerned, an act of
culpable homicide does not amount to murder if
following ingredients are fulfilled (i) there is no
pre-meditation; (ii) there is a sudden fight; (iii)
the act is committed in the heat of passion; and (iv)
the assailant has not taken any undue advantage or
acted in a cruel manner. Although the term ‘fight’
has not been defined in IPC, but the consistent view
is that it implies mutual assault by use of criminal
force and not mere verbal duel.
9. In Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra,
(1978) 3 SCC 330 (para 6), followed and affirmed in
Awadhesh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2019) 10 SCC
323, this Court held that where the accused is armed
and the deceased is unarmed, Exception 2 can have no
application and Exception 4 to Section 300 would not
apply if there is sudden quarrel but no fight between
the deceased and the accused. It was held that
‘fight’ postulates a bilateral transaction in which
blows are exchanged.
10. In the instant case, there is no evidence of exchange
of blows. In our view, therefore, case would not fall
under Exception 4 to Section 300. Moreover,
infliction of 4 knife blows to an unarmed person, on
vital parts of the body, is indicative of the accused
acting in a cruel manner.
11. At last, the appellant’s counsel argued that case may
fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 because
infliction of knife blows took place after a quarrel.
In our view, there is not much evidence on record to
disclose that provocation was so grave and sudden
that the appellant was deprived of his self-control.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any
mitigating circumstances on basis whereof we may
reduce the sentence by altering the conviction of the
appellant for an offence lesser than one punishable
under Section 302 IPC.
13. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
14. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
New Delhi; December 09, 2025.
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 5532/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-05-2024 in CRA No. 263/2021 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla]
SURENDER KUMAR Petitioner(s)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondent(s)
Date : 09-12-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR
Mr. Swaroopanand Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rahulkumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Sethi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
1.Leave granted.
2.The appeal is dismissed in terms of the reportable signed order which is placed on the file.
3.All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. (KAVITA PAHUJA) (SAPNA BANSAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)