Holding

The Court held that the killing was committed under grave and sudden provocation and without pre‑meditation, qualifying for Exceptions 1 and 4 of Section 300 IPC, and therefore the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part II of Section 304 IPC.

Summary

Muthu, a waste‑paper merchant, was charged with murder after he stabbed Siva, a waste‑paper collector, who had thrown rubbish into Muthu's shop. The trial court convicted Muthu under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the killing was committed under grave and sudden provocation and without pre‑meditation, thereby attracting the benefits of Exception 1 and Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The Court found that Muthu acted in the heat of the moment, had not carried the knife beforehand, and lacked intent to cause death, so the offence fell under Part II of Section 304 IPC. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence to five years’ simple imprisonment, with credit for time already served. The appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the killing constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC due to grave and sudden provocation.
Whether the killing also falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC as a sudden fight without premeditation.
Whether the offence should be punished under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
Whether the accused had the requisite intention or motive to cause death, given he picked up the knife during the altercation.
Appropriate quantum of sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 304

Subjects

culpable homicideSection 300 IPCException 1Exception 4grave and sudden provocationpremeditationSection 304 IPC Part IIsentencingself‑control

Judgment

1'"""'
MUTHU A
v.
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU

NOVEMBER 2, 2007
B
A
l
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.}
./'

Penal Code; 1860; Exception 1 and 4 to Section 300, Ss. 302
and 304 Part-II:
c
Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder-Deceased
throwing rubbish into shop ofaccused-Accused stabbed knife in chest
of deceased-Deceased succumbed to injury-Trial Court found
accused guilty of committing offence punishable u/s.302 JPC and
sentenced him to life imprisonment-Affirmed by High Court-On D
>--
J.
appeal, Held: Accused deprived ofpower ofself-control due to grave
t
and sudden provocation given by deceased-Accused picked up knife
from table in the shop and was not carrying it, thus, accused had no
intention/motive to cause death of the deceased-In the facts and
under the circumstances of the case, accused entitled to benefit of
E
Exception 1and4 to Section 300-Hence, offence covered under Part-
II of S. 304 !PC-Accordingly, sentence reduced to simple
imprisonment ofjive years-Sentencing.
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, accused-
appellant who was working in a waste paper merchant shop was F
, r arranging the articles inside the shop. The deceased, who used to
collect waste papers from the roadside threw the waste-papers inside
the shop. On seeing this, the accused got angry and shouted at the
deceased and pulled his hair. The deceased thereupon pushed the

- ---1~·
accused. Then the accused picked up a knife from the table in the G
shop and stabbed the deceased in the chest, who fell down and
succumbed to the injury. The trial court found the accused guilty of
committing offence punishable under S. 302 IPC and sentenced him
to life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence was upheld by
911 H
I
____,,,

912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A the High Court. Hence the present appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The case comes under Exception I to Section 300
IPC. [Para 5) [914-H; 915-A)
B
1.2. The accused was deprived ofthe power of self-control by
grave and sudden provocation which led him to commit the offence.
[Para 6] (915-C]
1.3. It is evident thatthe accused had no motive or intention to
C cause the death of the deceased since the accused was not carrying
the knife from before, and only picked it up during the scuffie with
the deceased. [Para 6] [915-C]
Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala, [2000] 10 SCC 307 and
D Masumsha Hasana.sha Musa/man v. State of Maharashtra, (2000] 3
sec 557' relied on. J_
(
1.4. There is a clear distinction between a case of pre-meditated
attack with intention to cause death and a case where there was no
such pre-meditated intention and death was caused in the heat of
E the moment or-fit of anger.during an altercation or quarrel.
[Para 10] [916-B]
Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State ofA.P., [2006] 11 SCC 444, referred
to.
F 1.5. No doubt, even in the heat of the moment or fit of anger
one should not attack somebody since human beings are different
from animals inasmuch as they have the power of self-control.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the heat of the moment and
in a fit of anger people some times do acts which may not have been
G done after premeditation. Hencethe.law provides that while those
who commit acts in the heat ofthe moment or fit of anger should
also be punished, their punishment should be lesser than that of
premeditated offences. It is for.this reason that Exceptions I and 4
have been inserted in Section 300 IPC. [Para 11] [916-C-D]
H
~
..r
MUTHU v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL 913
NADU

1.6. The present case also comes under Exception 4 to Section A
300 IPC since the ingredients of Exception 4 are all satisfied in the
facts of the present case. [Para 13] (916-G]

Pappu v. State ofMP., (2006) 7 SCC 391, referred to.

J 1. 7. Throwing waste and rubbish inside the house or shop of B
f somebody is certainly a grave and sudden provocation. Everyone.
wishes to keep his premises neat and clean, and is likely to loose
his self-control in such a situation. The incident in question occurred
in a sudden fight and a heat of passion by a sudden quarrel without
the appellant having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or c
unusual manner. Hence the appellant is entitled to the benefit of
Exceptions I and 4 and the case comes under Part-II of Section 304
IPC. The instant case will come under the second part of Section
304 IPC. [Para 14) (916-H; 917-A-B]
)... D
Ramesh Vithalrao Thakre and Anr. v. State ofMaharashtra, AIR
• (1995) SC 1453; Sarup Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR (1995) SC
2452; Mavila Tham ban Nambiar v. State ofKera/a, AIR (1997) SC
687; Sudhir Samanta v. State of West Bengal and Anr., AIR (1998)
SC 289; K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1999)
SC 1428; Tho/an v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1984] 2 SCC 133; Jagpati E
v. State ofMadhya Pradesh, AIR (1993) SC 1360; Tarsem Singh and
Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR (2002) SC 760; Hari Ram v. State of
Haryana, AIR (1983) SC 185; Randhir Singh v. State ofPunjab, AIR
(1982) SC 55; Kulwant Rai v. State of Punjab, AIR (1982) SC 126
( and Shankar v. $tate ofMadhya Pradesh, AIR (1979) SC 1532, relied F
'
on.

2. On the facts of the case the act committed was done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention
.... to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. G
J
Hence the offence comes under the Part II of Section 304 IPC.
-\'
Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the courts below is substituted
by the sentence of five years' simple imprisonment and any period
of incarceration in jail which the accused has already undergone shall
H
~..
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A be deducted from the aforesaid period of five years.
[Paras 16 and 17] [917-E-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminai Appeal No.
1511 of2007.
B From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2005 of the High ),_
-",
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 1999.
K.K. Mani, C.K.R. Lenin Sekar and Mayur R. Shah for the
Appellant.
c V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle and S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted.
D .A,
2. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order 1
dated 20. 7.2005 of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 818of1999.
3. The prosecution case is that on 9.4.1998 at about 8.A.M., PWl
E Radhakrishnan, PW3 Sakthivel and PW4 Arurnugam went to a shop for
taking tea. Next to the tea shop, a waste paper merchant shop was
situated. Muthu, the accused (appellant herein) was working in that shop
and after opening the shop he was arranging the articles kept inside the
shop. At that time, the_ deceased Siva who used to collect waste papers
F from the roadside, collected the waste-papers· and cardboard boxes and ~
threw them inside the shop of the accused. On seeing-this the accused
got angry and shouted at Siva "why do you do this everyday?" and pulled
his hair. The deceased thereupon pushed the accused. Then the accused
took a knife from the top of a table in the shop and stabbt;d Siva in the
G chest. Siva fell down due to this injury and died. ·'I
·1-
4. The trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC
and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The aforesaid conviction and
sentence was upheld by the High Court in appeal. Hence this appeal.

H 5. We are of the opinion that the case comes under Exception I to
~··
' MUTHUv. STATEBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE, TAMIL 915
NADU [MARKANDEYKATJU,J.]
't-
Section 300 IPC which states as under: A
"Exception 1. When culpable homicide is not murder. Culpable
homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power
of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death
of the person who gave the provocation or causes the deatH of
B
any other person by mistake or accident.
.J
f 6. We are satisfied that the accused was deprived of the power of
self-control by grave and sudden provocation which led him to commit
the offence. If rubbish is thrown into one's house or shop one would
naturally get very upset. It is evident that the accused had no motive or c
intention to cause the death of the deceased since the accused was not
carrying the knife from before, and only picked it up during the scuffle
with the deceased.
7. We find support in our view from the decisions of this Court in
Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala, [2000] 10 SCC 307 as well as fo D
~
Masumsha Hasanasha Musa/man v. State of Maharashtra, [2000) 3
~
sec 557.
8. The position may have been different if right from the beginning
the appellant accused had been carrying a knife with the intention to attack E
the deceased. But that is not the case here.
9. Learned counsel for the State relied on the decision in Pulicherla
Nagaraju V. State ofA.P., [2006] 11 sec 444. In that decision itself it
has been mentioned in paragraph 29 that whether there was an intenti~m
to cause death is to be gathered from several circumstances, and one of F
J the circumstances mentioned in the said paragraph is whether the weap<i>n
was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot. If it ·was
carried by the accused right from the beginning that may be a circumstance
to indicate that there was an intention to cause death if it was used for
attacking the deceased on a vital part of the body. However, when the G
weapon was not initially in the hand of the accused, but was picked up
-.......i:-· from the spot dUiing the altercation, then it cannot be said that it is a c~e
under Section 302 IPC, rather it is only a case of culpable homicide not
amoWlting to murder which comes Wlder Section 304 IPC and not Wlder
Section 302 IPC. H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
~
-r
A 10. The observation of the court in the above decision that "it is for
the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section
302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part
I/II" cannot, in our opinion, be understood to mean that the court should
somehow try to find out some way of treating the offence to be under
B Section 302 IPC. In our opinion, there is a clear distinction between a
case of pre-meditated attack with intention to cause death and a case A
where there was no such pre-meditated intention and death was caused '""
in the heat of the moment or fit of anger during an altercation or quarrel.
11. No doubt, even in the heat of the moment or fit of anger one
c should not attack somebody since human beings are different from animals
inasmuch as they have the power of self-control. Nevertheless, the fact
remains that in the heat of the moment and in a fit of anger people some
times do acts which may not have been done after premeditation. Hence
the law provides that while those who commit acts in the heat of the
D moment or fit of anger should also be punished, their punishment should
be l~sser than that of premeditated offences. It is for this reason that
--',
{
Exceptions I and 4 have been inserted in Section 300 IPC.
12. We may also refer to Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC which
E reads as under:
"Ex.ception 4. - 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".
F
13. The difference between Exception I and Exception 4 to Section
300 has been explained by this Court in Pappu v. State ofMP., [2006]
SCC 391. In our opinion, the present case also comes under Exception
4 to Section 300 IPC since the ingredients of Exception 4 are all satisfied
G in the facts of the prese!lt case.
14. In our opinion, throwing waste and rubbish inside the house or t:
shop of somebody is certainly a grave and sudden provocation: Everyone ·--r-
wishes to keep his premises neat and clean, and is likely to loose his self-
control in such a situation. The incident in question occurred in a sudden
H
'
\--
MUTHU v. STATEBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE, TAMIL 917
NADU[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.]
r
fight and a heat of passion by a sudden quarrel without the appellant A
having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Hence the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exceptions I and 4 and
the case comes under Section 304 IPC.
15. The next question is whether the case will come under the first
B
~ part or the second part of Section 304 IPC. In our opinion it will cdme
> under the second part in view of the decisions of this Court in Ramesh
Vithalrao Thakre and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1995) SC
1453, Sarup Singh v. State ofHaryana, AIR (1995) SC 2452, MaVila
Thamban Nambiar v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1997) SC 687, Sudhir
Samanta v. State of West Bengal and Anr., AIR (1998) SC 289, K c
Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala, AIR (1999) SC 14!28,
Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1984] 2 SCC 133, Jagpati v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1993) SC 1360, Tarsem Singh and Ors. v.
State ofPunjab, AIR (2002) SC 760, Hari Ram v. State ofHaryana,
... AIR (1983) SC 185, Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1982) D
~ SC 55, Ku/want Rai v. State of Punjab, AIR (1982) SC 126 and
Shankar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1979) SC 1532.
16. In our opinion on the facts of the case the act committed was
done with the knowledge it is likely to cause death but without any intention E
to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
, Hence the offence comes under the Part II of Section 304 IPC.
~

17. For the reasons given above, the sentence awarded by tl:e cotµts
below is substituted by the sentence of five years' simple imprisonment
and any period of incarceration in jail which the accused has already F
f undergone shall be deducted from the aforesaid period of five years. Tue
judgments of the courts below are modified accordingly and the appeal
stands disposed off.
18. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. G
He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
I-.
t --,
S.K.S. Appeal Partly allowed.