The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a criminal appeal seeking the modification of a conviction from murder to a lesser offense, ruling that inflicting four knife blows on the vital parts of an unarmed person indicates that the accused acted in a cruel manner, thereby disentitling him to the benefit of the exceptions under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Bench, comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, upheld the conviction of the appellant, Surender Kumar, under Section 302 of the IPC, affirming the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Legal Issue and Background
The central legal issue before the Apex Court was whether the appellant’s conviction could be altered from Section 302 IPC (Murder) to a lesser offense based on the mitigating circumstances provided under the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. A limited notice had been issued earlier in March 2025 to consider this specific aspect.
The prosecution’s case was supported by the autopsy report, which reflected that the deceased had sustained four knife blows on vital parts of the body. Specifically, the “common carotid and subclavian arteries were found cut.” The Court observed that these injuries, in the ordinary course of nature, would have resulted in death.
It was noted that no defense evidence was led during the trial. Furthermore, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the petitioner offered only a denial and did not state that the deceased had attacked him or caused any injury.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the incident should fall under either Exception 2 (exceeding the right of private defense) or Exception 4 (sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation) of Section 300 IPC.
The counsel submitted that evidence indicated the deceased was addicted to drugs and that “loud shouts were heard before the occurrence.” Based on this, it was contended that the incident was preceded by an altercation or quarrel. The counsel also submitted that the accused had suffered an injury, suggesting a struggle.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined the applicability of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC and rejected the appellant’s contentions on all grounds.
On Exception 2 (Right of Private Defense) The Court held that the act would not fall under Exception 2 as there was “no evidence to show that the accused or his property was attacked by the deceased.” The Bench highlighted that the appellant had not raised any plea of self-defense or claimed that the deceased caused him injury in his Section 313 CrPC statement. Additionally, the Court noted, “it is not shown that the deceased was armed.”
On Exception 4 (Sudden Fight) The Court reiterated that for Exception 4 to apply, four ingredients must be fulfilled:
- No premeditation.
- A sudden fight.
- The act is committed in the heat of passion.
- The assailant has not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
Citing the precedent in Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra (1978) and Awadhesh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2019), the Court observed that a “fight” postulates a “bilateral transaction in which blows are exchanged.” The Court held that where the accused is armed and the deceased is unarmed, Exception 4 does not apply if there is a sudden quarrel but no fight.
In the present case, the Bench observed:
“In the instant case, there is no evidence of exchange of blows. In our view, therefore, case would not fall under Exception 4 to Section 300. Moreover, infliction of 4 knife blows to an unarmed person, on vital parts of the body, is indicative of the accused acting in a cruel manner.”
On Exception 1 (Grave and Sudden Provocation) Addressing the final argument that the case might fall under Exception 1 due to a quarrel, the Court stated:
“In our view, there is not much evidence on record to disclose that provocation was so grave and sudden that the appellant was deprived of his self-control.”
Decision
Finding no mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Case Details
- Case Title: Surender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. [Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5532/2025]
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1412
- Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR, Mr. Swaroopanand Mishra, Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Mr. Rahulkumar, Mr. Rajiv Sethi.
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR.
