Supreme Court Reaffirms Section 302 Conviction and Dismisses the Plea Under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC

The Supreme Court of india, while dismissing the appeal -which sought to convert a conviction under Section 302 IPC (103 BNS) to a lesser offence, held that inflicting multiple blows with knife on an unarmed person’s vital organs constitutes acting in a "cruel manner" which disqualifies from the benefit of legal exceptions.

The present appeal is fined aggrieved by the judgment of judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which had affirmed the conviction of the appellant, Surender Kumar, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the commission of murder,.

The Supreme Court initially issued a limited notice to determine whether the conviction could be modified to a lesser offence, such as from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. While the prosecution's case rested on an incident where the deceased sustained four fatal knife blows to vital parts of his body, specifically the common carotid and subclavian arteries, the defence took the plea of any one of the four Exceptions of Section 300 of IPC (101 BNS).

The Bench, comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, provided critical clarifications on the application of Exceptions to Section 300 IPC (101 BNS), particularly regarding the definitions of "self-defense" and "sudden fight"

Rejecting the notion of Private Defense, the Apex Court observed that, there must be evidence that the accused or his property was under attack. In this instance, there was no proof that the deceased was armed or had initiated any harm against the appellant,.

Additionally, the appellant failed to raise the plea of self-defense during his Section 313 CrPC statement, and no defense evidence was led to support such a claim.

The Apex Court further noted that the convict/appellant’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was a simple denial, and lacked any plea of self-defense or a sudden provocation. Considering the severity of the injuries inflicted, and the lack of evidence showing an exchange of blows, and the Apex Court concluded that the act did not fall within the protective ambit of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC (101 BNS).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that while the IPC does not explicitly define a "fight," however, it legally implies a mutual assault involving the use of criminal force, rather than a mere verbal duel. Following the precedent in Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that a "fight" postulates a bilateral transaction where blows are actually exchanged.

On the "Acting in Cruel Manner", the Apex Court emphasized that even if a quarrel occurred, Exception 4 is inapplicable if the assailant takes undue advantage or acts in a cruel manner. The Court held that the infliction of four knife blows on an unarmed person, directed specifically at vital parts of the body, is a clear indication that the accused acted in a cruel manner.

For the absence of 'Grave and Sudden Provocation' which leads the argument into a quarrel, the Apex Court found insufficient evidence to suggest that any provocation was so "grave and sudden" that it deprived the appellant of his self-control.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court having found no mitigating circumstances to justify altering the conviction, and thus dismissed the appeal and upheld the life sentence.

CORAM: JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA AND JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN.