Name: Pratham Pratap Mohanty

Roll No.: 1806

Semester: III

Subject: Crime and Punishment - 1

 Answer :

The crime of Murder is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”],
whereas the crime of Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder is defined under Section
299. However, Sec. 300 enlists 4 exceptions, under which a person may not be prosecuted for
Murder but for Culpable Homicide. Although, humans are different from animals and are
expected to be civilized and uphold standards that do not allow the commission of violent
acts, exceptions occur where they may lose self-control and commit crimes. These exceptions
allow for punishment for such crimes but recognize that these instances cannot be equated
with pre-meditated and calculated murder. 

A very important case in this context is the case of Surain Singh v. State of Punjab, where the
court upheld that under Exception 4 of Section 300, a death of a person caused in a ‘sudden
fight’ is not murder. In the case, the accused and some others had entered into a violent
quarrel with another party of men, with whom they shared a history of violence over the
irrigation of their fields. The quarrel had slipped into exchange of blows with fatal results.
The court observed that “sudden fight” implied mutual provocation and blows on each side.
There was no previous deliberation or determination to fight. Both the murderer and his
victim were equally to blame.

Similarly, considering Exception 1 of Section 300, the court in the case of Pulicherla
Nagaraju vs. State of A.P, clarified that to gauge the presence of an intention to cause death,
the surrounding several circumstances must be taken into consideration. The circumstances
mentioned in the decision included, whether the accused was carrying a weapon, or it was
picked up from a spot. If it was carried by the accused from the beginning it may be
considered as a circumstance indicating that the accused had an intention to cause death.
However, if the weapon was not initially with the accused, but the accused picked it up at
some point during the altercation, then the act may not be considered to be murder but may
be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder which is punishable under Section
304 IPC.

Further, in the case of Mahmood v. State, the court observed that there are certain ingredients
required to fulfil in order to come under the ambit of Exception 1. Which are as follows.

 The provocation must be sudden

 The provocation must be grave

  Losing a self- control

In the case of Surain Singh vs State of Punjab, the Court stated the difference between two
exceptions of murder. i.e. Exception 1 and Exception 4. Both the exception based on the
same principle but there is an absence of premeditation in both the cases. In the case of
Exception 1, there is total deprivation of self-control, while in the case of Exception 4 there is
only a heat of passion which clouds men’s sober reason and encourages them to do which
they would not do otherwise. There is a provocation in both the exception but in Exception
4 the injury caused is not the direct result of that provocation. However, Exception 4 states
that deals with the cases in which notwithstanding that any blow which has been struck, or
some provocation is given in the origin of quarrel or in whatever manner the quarrel has been
started, yet the subsequent act of both the parties puts them in respect of guilt upon an equal
footing.

Having discussed the above, in the present case of Muthu v. State, ruled that based on the
facts and circumstances, the accused was liable for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. The case fell within Exception 1 and Exception 4 of Section 300 as all the
ingredients were fulfilled. It was accepted that throwing garbage inside someone’s shop will
certainly enrage the person working in the shop and result in provoking that individual. It
may very likely cause a person to lose self-control and commit acts that they would not have
committed after premeditation.  The accused had to intention or motive to commit the act of
murder. There was no indication of a pre-meditated intention to commit murder either as the
knife was picked up during the time the incident and the accused did not bring it with him.
The accused did not do anything to seek the provocation from Shiv. The Court opined that
the act was not committed with the intention to cause death, however, it was done with the
knowledge that the act could result in death.

It is important to note that the accused lacked the element of intention in his act of stabbing
the victim. It is noteworthy that victim had been continuously harassing the accused by
throwing garbage to his premises. On the day of the event, it can be deduced from the facts
that the attack by the accused was not premediated and was only pursuant to the action of the
victim. The very fact that knife was picked up from the table in between the fight and not
otherwise, shows that it clearly falls under the ambit of Exception 1.

Additionally, as the fight was initiated by the actions of the victim and the fight was not
premediated. The very fact that both the parties fought in anger and passion, both of them
stand at equal footing of liability. As the death occurred as a result of the fight, the same
should come under the ambit of Exception 4.