Sudden quarrel without premeditation during a property dispute attracts Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

On May 9, 2021, the appellant and his elder brother, Ankura Doraiburu (deceased), returned from a marriage ceremony to their home in Village Gumuria.

A sudden quarrel erupted between the brothers regarding the sale of a joint Ox.

In the heat of the moment, the appellant stabbed the deceased once in the back with a knife, causing fatal lung injuries.

The wife of the deceased (P.W.-4) witnessed the aftermath and intervened.

The trial court (Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum) convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this, seeking a reduction of the charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC suffers from any error of law.

Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, thereby altering the conviction to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.

The court primarily applied Section 300, Exception 4 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage.

It applied the four-fold test for this exception: sudden fight, absence of premeditation, act done in heat of passion, and no undue advantage/cruelty.

The court further relied on the precedent *Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh* (AIR 1989 SC 1094), which established that a single blow delivered during a heated exchange without prior malice warrants a conviction under Section 304 Part-I rather than Section 302.

The High Court observed that while the appellant’s act of stabbing was proven by the testimony of P.W.-4 and the medical evidence of P.W.-7, the context of the crime fell under the exceptions to murder.

The court noted that the dispute arose suddenly over a property matter (the Ox) without any evidence of prior planning or premeditation.

The fact that only a single blow was struck indicated that the appellant did not act in a "cruel or unusual manner" or take "undue advantage".

The court reasoned that although the appellant was armed with a knife, the lack of prior enmity and the spontaneous nature of the quarrel during a "heat of passion" fit the criteria of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Consequently, the intention required for Section 302 was absent, though the knowledge and intent to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death were present under Section 304 Part-I.

The court held the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.

The sentence of life imprisonment was altered to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000, with a default stipulation.

The court also directed the District Legal Services Authority to process victim compensation for the heirs of the deceased.