Criminal Law — Homicide — IPC, S.300 Exceptions 1, 2 & 4 — Whether conviction for murder (S.302 IPC) could be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder — facts: four knife-blows to vital parts (common carotid & subclavian arteries cut) — no defence evidence, accused’s s.313 denial only — whether plea of self-defence / sudden fight / grave provocation available — held: no mitigating exception available; substantial injuries on vital parts, absence of evidence of exchange of blows or deceased being armed, lack of plea or proof of sudden loss of self-control; accused rightly convicted under s.302; appeal dismissed.

Criminal Law — Homicide — IPC, S.300 Exceptions 1, 2 & 4 — Whether conviction for murder (S.302 IPC) could be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder — facts: four knife-blows to vital parts (common carotid & subclavian arteries cut) — no defence evidence, accused’s s.313 denial only — whether plea of self-defence / sudden fight / grave provocation available — held: no mitigating exception available; substantial injuries on vital parts, absence of evidence of exchange of blows or deceased being armed, lack of plea or proof of sudden loss of self-control; accused rightly convicted under s.302; appeal dismissed.

RATIO / KEY POINTS

1. Standard for applicability of Exceptions to S.300 IPC (Exceptions 1, 2, 4):
   — Exception 2 (exceeding right of private defence) requires a foundation that the accused or his property was being attacked; mere allegation of quarrel or shouts is insufficient. Where there is no evidence that the deceased attacked or threatened the accused, Exception 2 is inapplicable.
   — Exception 4 (sudden fight) postulates a bilateral exchange of blows — a “fight” — not merely a quarrel or verbal duel. If the assailant is armed and the deceased unarmed, Exception 4 will not ordinarily apply. (Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra followed; Awadhesh Kumar affirmed.)

2. Nature and gravity of injuries decisive:
   — Infliction of multiple knife-blows on vital parts (here four blows cutting common carotid and subclavian arteries) ordinarily establishes that the act would in the ordinary course cause death; such injuries are indicative of lethal intent and/or cruel manner of attack, militating against classification as culpable homicide in sudden fight or mere excess of private defence.

3. Requirement of contemporaneous or proximate provocation for Exception 1:
   — Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation) requires that provocation be so grave and sudden as to deprive the accused of self-control. Mere antecedent quarrel or shouting (or general allegation of addiction and shouts) without evidence that provocation was immediate and of such quality is insufficient to attract Exception 1.

4. Procedural and evidentiary posture:
   — Where no defence evidence is led and the accused’s statement under s.313 CrPC contains only denial (no plea of self-defence or that deceased attacked), court cannot conjure missing factual substratum necessary to draw Exceptions to S.300 in favour of accused.

5. Conclusion on sentencing/conviction:
   — In absence of (i) evidence of deceased attacking accused, (ii) bilateral exchange of force, or (iii) grave and sudden provocation, and on the presence of multiple lethal blows to vital parts, benefit of Exceptions 1, 2 or 4 cannot be extended. Conviction under S.302 IPC stands; appeal to reduce offence is rightly dismissed.