Why was Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC held inapplicable?
Coram: Manoj Misra; Ujjal Bhuyan
Penal Code, 1860 — s.300 Exception 2 — Right of private defence — Absence of attack — Held: The benefit of Exception 2 to Section 300 is not available where there is no evidence that the accused or his property was attacked by the deceased, no plea of self-defence was raised in the statement under Section 313 CrPC, no defence evidence was led, and the deceased is not shown to have been armed. (¶7) Penal Code, 1860 — s.300 Exception 4 — Sudden fight — "Fight" postulates exchange of blows — Held further: Exception 4 does not apply where, though there may have been a sudden quarrel, there was no fight — a "fight" postulates a bilateral transaction in which blows are exchanged; where the accused is armed and the deceased unarmed with no exchange of blows, and four knife blows are inflicted on the vital parts of an unarmed person, the accused has acted in a cruel manner (Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade; Awadhesh Kumar). (¶8, 9, 10) Penal Code, 1860 — s.300 Exception 1, s.302 — Grave and sudden provocation — Conviction affirmed — Held further: There being little evidence that any provocation was so grave and sudden as to deprive the accused of self-control, and no mitigating circumstance made out, the conviction under Section 302 cannot be reduced to a lesser offence. (¶11, 12) Appeal dismissed. (¶13)
Why was Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC held inapplicable?
Because there was no evidence that the deceased attacked the accused or his property, no plea of self-defence was raised under Section 313 CrPC, no defence evidence was led, and the deceased was not shown to be armed.
When does a 'sudden fight' under Exception 4 arise?
A 'fight' postulates a bilateral transaction in which blows are exchanged, not a mere verbal duel or one-sided assault; with the accused armed, the deceased unarmed and no exchange of blows, Exception 4 could not apply.
Why was the conviction under Section 302 IPC not reduced?
Because there was little evidence of grave and sudden provocation depriving the accused of self-control, and inflicting four knife blows on an unarmed person's vital parts showed cruelty — no mitigating circumstance existed.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.
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.
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).
Autopsy report reflects that the deceased was inflicted with four knife blows on vital parts of his body. Common carotid and subclavian arteries were found cut. Thus, in our view, injuries found on the body of the deceased in ordinary course would have 1 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.
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.
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 2 that the deceased was armed. In such circumstances, in our view, benefit of Exception 2 would not be available to the petitioner.
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.
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.
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, 3 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.
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.
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.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of. ……………………………………………………………………..J [MANOJ MISRA] ……………………………………………………………………..J [UJJAL BHUYAN] New Delhi; December 09, 2025.
Does an earnest money shortfall vitiate an auction under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002?
2026 INSC 909 · Supreme Court of India
Does the open ballot in Council of States elections take away an elector’s right to vote?
2023 INSC 302 · Supreme Court of India
Can the NGT order rehabilitation of a site under Section 15 of the NGT Act?
2026 INSC 910 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy