Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court has observed that if an accused takes undue advantage of a situation, then the accused won't be entitled to the application of exception 4 of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala.

What was the Background of Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the allegation is that the appellant, with the intention to kill his wife, lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her when she had already poured kerosene upon herself due to the quarrel with the appellant.
• After the death of the wife in the hospital, the husband was charged for the offences under Section 302 and Section 498A of the IPC.
• The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 498A of the IPC by both the Trial Court and the High Court.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the SC.
• Dismissing the appeal, the SC held that the appellant is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal observed that in the instant case, the appellant upon seeing the deceased drenched in kerosene clearly took advantage of the situation and lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her so that she can be burnt. The appellant having taken undue advantage of the situation cannot be extended the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
• The Court further noted that the exception clearly in unequivocal term states that it would be applicable where culpable homicide is committed not only without premeditated mind in a sudden fight or quarrel but also without the offender taking undue advantage of the situation.

What is Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC?

• Section 300 of IPC deals with Murder.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
• Explanation to Exception 4 states that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
• The following are the essential elements of Exception 4:
  • The fight must have taken place between the offender and the person who has been murdered.
  • Existence of a sudden fight.
  • In the excitement of heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
  • No undue benefit has been taken by the offender.
  • The offender does not act cruelly or differently.
• In the case of Amirthalinga Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu (1976), the SC held that in the case of a sudden fight, where the disastrous blow was given as a part of the sudden fight that provokes out of a sudden quarrel between the appellants and deceased, there is no scope for premeditation. The appellant does not take unfair advantage and acted cruelly and unusually.