Madras High Court
Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

A single fatal blow in a sudden fight without undue advantage falls under Section 304 Part I.

VIJI@VIJAYAKUMAR vs THE STATE REP.BY

Madras High CourtJUDGMENT: September 30, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
A single fatal blow in a sudden fight without undue advantage falls under Section 304 Part I.. VIJI@VIJAYAKUMAR vs THE STATE REP.BY. Madras High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

On 29 December 2013, during a sudden quarrel, the appellant struck Narayanan on the head once with an iron rod.

Source reference: para. 2–3, 10–12, 19–21

Narayanan received treatment and died in hospital on 14 January 2014; the post-mortem attributed death to head injuries.

Source reference: para. 2–3, 10–12, 19–21

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. He appealed, contending that the incident fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and seeking reduction of the offence and sentence.

Source reference: para. 2–3, 10–12, 19–21
02

Issues

Whether the appellant’s act fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Source reference: para. 23, 25–28

Whether the offence was punishable under Section 304 Part I or Part II IPC and, if so, what sentence should be imposed.

Source reference: para. 29–32
03

Law Applied

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies where culpable homicide is committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight and heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly or unusually; it is immaterial which party initiated the provocation or first assault.

Source reference: para. 25

Under Section 304 IPC, Part I applies where the act is accompanied by the relevant guilty intention, while Part II applies where there is no such intention but the offender has guilty knowledge.

Source reference: para. 29

Relying on Anbazhagan v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, 2023 (10) SCALE 173, the Court noted that a single injury inflicted during a sudden fight may support an inference of guilty knowledge, but the nature of the injury and weapon remain relevant to determining intention and the applicable part of Section 304.

Source reference: para. 29
04

Reasoning

The evidence showed that the appellant struck the deceased once during an altercation arising immediately before the incident. The Court found no premeditation, undue advantage, or cruel or unusual conduct; the appellant left the scene after the blow. It therefore held that Exception 4 applied.

Source reference: para. 27–28

However, because the appellant used an iron rod to inflict a head injury, the Court found the requisite guilty intention and classified the offence under Section 304 Part I, rather than Part II.

Source reference: para. 30

In fixing sentence, it also considered that the deceased died after nearly two weeks in hospital and that the prosecution had not produced evidence detailing the treatment or surgery.

Source reference: para. 31–32
05

Holding

The appeal was partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to one under Section 304 Part I IPC, and the life sentence was reduced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment; the remainder of the trial court’s judgment, including the fine, was confirmed.

The appellant was directed to surrender within ten days, with the period already undergone to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

Source reference: para. 34
06

Acts & Sections Cited

12 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734

Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

VIJI@VIJAYAKUMARvsTHE STATE REP.BY

Madras High Court · September 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment