Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC Not Attracted Where Attack Was Premeditated and Lethal” – Supreme Court Refuses to Convert Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide

“Spade-blows aimed at the skull prove deliberate intent to kill, not a sudden quarrel” – Supreme Court of India firmly ruled that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which reduces murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when death is caused in a sudden fight without premeditation, cannot be invoked where the assailants acted with a clear and shared intent to kill.

Dismissing the appellants’ contention that the crime resulted from a “free fight” or sudden quarrel during a boundary dispute, the Court held that the use of sharp-edged deadly weapons, such as spades (phawaras), and multiple targeted blows to vital areas like the skull, left no doubt that the accused acted with premeditated intent.

“The use of sharp spades to strike the head of the deceased demonstrates intention to kill. The circumstances to bring the case under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC do not exist,” the Court declared, affirming conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Boundary Dispute Was Longstanding, Accused Came Armed – Premeditation Inferred from Circumstances

The incident occurred on May 19, 1988, in a village where two related factions of the same extended family were locked in a prolonged land boundary dispute. When Dile Ram, the eventual victim, objected to the demolition of a boundary ridge (mendh) by the accused, he was abused, and then attacked by a group of men who had already arrived with weapons.

The appellants argued before the Court that the fight was mutual, with injuries sustained on both sides, and therefore the case should be brought under Section 304 Part II. However, the Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra found that this was not a spontaneous clash, but a pre-arranged and armed assault.

Citing the ruling in Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P. (2006), the Court reiterated:

“Where the weapon is carried in advance, the blow is aimed at a vital part, and the intention to cause death is evident from conduct and circumstances, the offence is clearly murder under Section 302 IPC.”

The Court listed critical factors negating the applicability of Exception 4:

• The nature and location of injuries (deep incised wounds on the head and skull)

• Use of lethal weapons like sharp spades and lathis

• Appellants came prepared with weapons

• Prior enmity due to land consolidation disputes

Common Object Established – No Scope for Reducing Charge

The Supreme Court rejected the notion that any ambiguity existed in the accused’s conduct. The Court concluded that the unlawful assembly had a common object to kill, as evident from the simultaneous and coordinated assault on three victims, two of whom succumbed to their injuries.

“Inchha and Dharamvir stood armed with sharp-edged deadly weapons and delivered fatal blows to eliminate the victims. This was not a reaction in the heat of passion but a planned and coordinated assault.”

The Bench further explained that mere injuries on the accused or the existence of a cross-FIR do not necessarily imply mutual fight or absence of premeditation. The Court noted that the injuries on the accused were superficial and not contemporaneous, and none of the defence witnesses could establish that the complainant side was the aggressor.

Free Fight Theory Rejected – Intention Determined by Manner and Motive

The defence theory that a free fight had broken out during an unplanned confrontation was dismantled. The Court emphasized that intention to kill can be inferred from the weapon used and how it was used.

Citing Pulicherla Nagaraju again, the Court highlighted:

“The intention to cause death can be gathered from factors like whether the blow was aimed at a vital part, the nature of the weapon, and the manner of the attack.”

In this case, the deceased suffered deep incised wounds on the skull, while PW-2 (an injured eyewitness) also suffered multiple lacerations on his head and limbs, consistent with the use of sharp, heavy weapons.

Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Upheld, No Mitigation Possible

Having found overwhelming evidence of deliberate and targeted violence, the Supreme Court concluded that the offence squarely falls under Section 302 IPC and not under Section 304 Part II, as pleaded by the appellants.

“There was clear motive, premeditation, and execution. This was no heat-of-the-moment scuffle. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC has no application,” the Court concluded.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the life sentence imposed by the Trial Court and High Court, and directed the appellants to surrender immediately, with liberty to seek remission as per State policy.

Date of Decision: October 28, 2025