SHARMA, J. - (1.) CHANDO @ Chandrapal, the appellant herein and with co-accused Mahendei were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur in Sessions case No. 52/2001. Learned Judge vide judgment dated June 3, 2002 while acquitting co-accused Mahadei, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer two months simple imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on April 13, 2001 the informant Charan Singh (PW. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Udyog Nagar Bharatpur to the effect that on the said day around 4 PM her daughter Rajan was washing clothes and appellant was taking both at the well. Finding herself drenched from the water dropped by the appellant, Rajan raised objection and altercations ensured. In the meanwhile Rajan's brother Bhagwan Singh arrived and asked the appellant to keep restraint. THE appellant got provoked, rushed to his nearby house, came back with knife and thrusted the knife on the chest of Bhagwan Singh, as a result of which Bhagwan Singh became unconscious and was removed to Hospital where he was declared dead. On that report a case under Section 302/109 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur. Charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentence the appellant as indicated herein above. Death of deceased Bhagwan Singh was indisputably homicidal in nature. As per postmortem report (Ex. P. 13) he received following ante mortem injuries:- 1. Stab incised wound, left side of chest anteriorly lower chest between 6th and 7th Inter coastal space, size 2. 5 cm x 1 cm x heart deep with red clotted blood obliquely placed. 3 cm from mid line towards both side chest anteriorly, 5 cm below left nipple. 2. Abrasion 2 x 1 cm upper lip, swollen right side. 3. Two abrasions 4 x 2 and 2 x 2 cm chin. In the opinion of Dr. Amar Singh Rathore (PW. 17) the cause of death was shock as a result of rupture of heart which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that there was no previous ill-will between the parties and the appellant was not the one who had started the quarrel but the deceased himself abused him Appellate thus acted in a heat of passion during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation and inflicted a solitary knife-blow hence appellant could not be held guilty under section 302 IPC Reliance is placed on Hari Ram vs. State of Haryana (1983) 1 SCC 193 and Krishna Tiwari vs. State of Bihar JT 2001 (3) SC 331. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of learned trial Court and urged that since the appellant acted in a cruel and unusual manner he was not entitled to the benefit of exception to Section 300 IPC. We have pondered over the submissions. In Hari Ram vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Krishna Tiwari vs. State of Bihar (supra), the case cited by the learned counsel for the appellant the accused, who after getting provoked came with sharp edged weapon and got the same thrusted on the chest of the deceased, were found guilty under Section 304 IPC.
(3.) TO invoke Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC four requirements must be satisfied:- (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in the heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. In the instant case all these ingredients are found present. The deceased himself had gone to the appellant and after hot exchanges the appellant in a fit of anger brought knife from house and inflicted solitary blow. His act appears to us sudden and unpremeditated. Because of the hot exchanges the appellant appears to have lost his temper and committed crime. There was no previous enmity and the appellant did not take undue advantage of the situation. Taking an overall view of the incident, we are inclined to think that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exception relied upon. For these reasons, we partly allow the appeal and instead of Section 302 IPC, we convict him under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. The impugned judgment of learned trial Judge stands modified as indicated above. .;