- (1.)MR . J.A. Syed Abdul Khader, Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Chennai is present in terms of the earlier orders of this Court. Mr. Khader regrets that unfortunately a practice has grown in the State of Tamil Nadu to act in the fashion as it has been effected in the matter under consideration. Mr. Khader, however, assures this Court that in future the State Government would act strictly according to the requirements of the statute and not dehors. The question of continuity of there being any practice being followed henceforth would not arise and the same has been discarded by the State Government.
(2.)THE appellant herein being the first accused in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1989 on the file of the Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Madras was tried along with ten others. The fact situation of the matter in issue has been very succinctly dealt with by the High Court in para 13 of the judgment:
"13. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about 12.30 p.m. and it was witnessed by PWs 1 to 4. PWs 1 to 4 have sustained injuries at the time of occurrence. It is the case of all these witnesses that at 12.15 p.m. when the dead body of tailor Munusamy was taken in a procession through N.M.K. Street and Pachaikkal Veerasamy Street, PW 5 asked all the shopkeepers to close their shops apprehending some trouble since some of the processionists were dancing. A-1 appeared at the scene and questioned the processionists as to who they are to ask the shopkeepers to close their shops in his locality and cut the deceased with MO 3, a knife. When the witnesses intervened, PW 1 was cut by A-1 and PWs 2 to 4 were cut by A-2. In respect of the incident which took place at 12.30 p.m., a complaint was also laid with PW 17, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at 12.45 p.m. i.e. within 15 minutes of the incident. Immediately, the injured were referred to the hospital where the duty doctor, PW 12 started examining the injured from 1.00 p.m."

It is on this set of facts the accused persons faced trial before the learned Sessions Judge. Four injured witnesses were examined as eyewitnesses and the incident herein brought about unfortunate end of the deceased Nagaiah. The post-mortem report found a stab injury on the left side of the root of the neck 1 cm lateral to the lateral border of the left sternomastoid muscle 4 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm clear-cut margins. Blood clots were present dark red in colour pointing downwards and medially. In the opinion of the doctor the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to the stab injuries sustained by him and the stab injuries were otherwise sufficient to cause death. The learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to pass an order of acquittal as regards A-3 to A-11 but convicted A-1 and A-2; whereas A-2 was convicted under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, A-1 was convicted under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with a punishment for life imprisonment. A-2, however, has served the sentence and now stands released from the jail. This appeal is thus by A-1 before this Court.

(3.)THE learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal rather strenuously contended that the High Court was in manifest error by reason of not considering Exception 4 to S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It has been contended that as a matter of fact there was a sudden quarrel and fight and the accused was persuaded by the exigencies of the situation to take steps and while taking steps unfortunately the injury stood suffered by the victim.