JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) IN this appeal, the appellant Majin Thomas George has challenged his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Arjundas Khurana at 7. 15 p. m. on 20-7-1975 for which he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. ( 2. ) THE prosecution case is this: Quarter No. 387 in Sector N/3 of govindpura, Bhopal, was allotted to the appellant who was working as a steno Typist in the Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. , Bhopal, as per allotment order dated 24-4-1969. (Vide Ex. P-22 ). In January 1973, the appellant received Rs. 500. 00 in cash and Rs. 500. 00 by cheque from Charanjit Sharma (P. W. 4)who was let in as a sub-tenant in the aforesaid quarter on monthly rent of rs. 65. 00 or 70. 00 p. m. . Charanjit Sharma (P. W. 4) occupied the quarter till either 16-7-1975 or 19-7-1975. On 20-7-1975, Laxmandas Taneja (P. W. 3 ). his wife Shrimati Chanchal Taneja (P. W. 1) and the deceased were in occupation of this quarter. On 20-7-1975, at 6. 30 p. m. , the appellant went to the quarter with his wife and children to live in it. An exchange of abuses took place between him and the deceased in which one Shri Homa intervened. The appellant promised to secure allotment of the quarter to Laxmandas Taneja and received Rs, 1,000. 00 from him. Laxmandas Taneja submitted an application dated 22-5-1974 (Ex. P-7) to the Allotment Officer, Estate Office, Bharat heavy Electrical Ltd. , Bhopal for allotment of quarter No. 387 to him. The appellant continued to receive more amounts from Laxmandas Taneja in expectation of the allotment of the quarter to him. ( 3. ) AFTER Charanjit Sharma (P. W. 4) vacated the quarter, he handed over the keys to Laxmandas Taneja who occupied it on 17-7-1975. On the date of incident, i. e. 20-7-1975, after Shri Homa had left the premises, the appellant and his companions surrounded Laxmandas Taneja (P. W. 3) and started beating him with fists and legs. Sticks were pulled out from the fencing of the quarter. Shrimati Chanchal Taneja witnessed the incident through a window of the same quarter. Arjundas Khurana came out of the quarter from the back door and reached near the appellant who pounced on him and inflicted stab wounds on his abdomen and chest. Sticks were pulled out from the fencing of the quarter. Shrimati Chanchal Taneja witnessed the incident through a window of the same quarter. Arjundas Khurana came out of the quarter from the back door and reached near the appellant who pounced on him and inflicted stab wounds on his abdomen and chest. Arjundas fell down injured. Laxmandas Taneja, through Manjitsingh, made a short report at the Govindpura police station which was recorded in the Roznamcha Sanha No. 1644 at 7. 50 p. m. of which Ex. P-25 is the true copy. ( 4. ) ARJUNDAS Khurana was removed to the Kasturba hospital where Town inspector Nirpalsingh (P. W. 20) came and obtained the F. I. R. Ex. P-1 from shrimati Chanchal Taneja (P. W. 1 ). Town Inspector Nirpalsingh (P. W. 20) seized the knife (Article A) from a chair inside the quarter as per seizure memo ex. P-3. Blood-stained and ordinary earth was seized as per seizure memos exhibits P-4 and P-5. He also seized a bush shirt and a paijama from laxmandas Taneja as per seizure memo Ex. P-9. ( 5. ) DR. A. K. Shukla (P. W. 8) examined Arjundas Taneja on 20-7-1975 at 8. 05 p. m. and as per report Ex. P-13, found the following marks of injuries on his person: (i) Incised wound, 21/2" X 1" X 1" below lateral half of left clavicle placed transversely. Skin and muscles were cut. (ii) Incised wound 3" X 1" x 1 on the epigastric region, placed obliquely. Skin and muscles were cut. Left lobe of the liver was visible from the wound. (iii) Incised wound 41/2" x 2" on the left sub-costal region, placed obliquely. Intestine and mesentery were protruding out from the wound. Dr. Shukla opined that the injuries could be caused by sharp object and were fresh in nature. He stated that he had mentioned lacerated wounds in his report, but they were incised wounds. He further stated that injuries 2 and 3 individually were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ( 6. ) DR. Shukla also examined L. D. Taneja and as per Ex. P-14 found the following marks of injuries on his person: (i) Lacerated wound on the left arm, lower third, lateral aspect, 1/2" X 1/4" X skin deep. (ii) Lacerated wound on the bridge of the nose, 1/2 x 1/4" X skin deep. ( 6. ) DR. Shukla also examined L. D. Taneja and as per Ex. P-14 found the following marks of injuries on his person: (i) Lacerated wound on the left arm, lower third, lateral aspect, 1/2" X 1/4" X skin deep. (ii) Lacerated wound on the bridge of the nose, 1/2 x 1/4" X skin deep. He stated that these injuries were fresh in nature and could be caused by sharp object. ( 7. ) THE same day Dr. A. K. Shukla examined the appellant and as per report Ex. P-15, found the following marks of injuries on his person : (i) Incised wound 1" X 1/2" skin deep over the 7th and 8th ribs 3" away from the xiphisternum. (ii) Incised wound 3/4" x 1/2" X skin deep over the left elbow, lateral aspect. (iii) Incised wound 3/4" X 1/2"x skin deep over the right hand, first web space. (iv) Abrasion 3" X 1/4" over the lower third of left leg, anterior aspect. (v) Linear abrasion 5" over the right side of chest, lateral aspect. (vi) Contusion on the right forearm, mid third. Dr. Shukla stated that the first three injuries could be caused by sharp object and were fresh. Other injuries could be caused by hard and blunt object. He could not say whether these injuries could be self inflicted or not. ( 8. ) DR. Yogesh Balvapuri (P. W. 7) examined Charanjit Sharma (P. W. 4)on 20-7-1975 and as per report Ex. P-12, found the following marks of injuries on his person: (i) Lacerated wound on the right side of the forehead extending upto head, vertical in direction and 4 x 1/4" in size. Bleeding was present. The injury was fresh and simple. (ii) Abrasion 1" x 1" on the left lateral aspect of knee joint. It was fresh and simple in nature. Bleeding was present. (iii) The patient complained pain in right calf, but there was no external injury. The injuries could be caused by hard and blunt object like lathi. ( 9. ) ARJUNDAS Khurana expired in the hospital and an inquest was held over his dead body on 21-7-1975 as per inquest report Ex. P-19. ( 10. ) DR. Hiresh Chandra (P. W. 21) performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Arjundas Khurana on 21-7-1975 and found injuries on the dead body as per post mortem report Ex. P-31. P-19. ( 10. ) DR. Hiresh Chandra (P. W. 21) performed the post mortem examination on the dead body of Arjundas Khurana on 21-7-1975 and found injuries on the dead body as per post mortem report Ex. P-31. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature, and could be caused by sharp edged weapon. Death occurred due to stab wounds on the abdomen, particularly wound No. 3, on the abdomen, resulting in shock and haemorrhage. ( 11. ) AS per Ex. P-29 of the Chemical Examiner, soiled earth seized from the spot, knife (Article A) and appellants bush shirt were found stained with blood. The Serologist, as per report Ex. P-30, could not determine the nature of the blood-stains on the knife. Clothes of the deceased and the appellants bush shirt were found stained with human blood. ( 12. ) THE appellant abjured his guilt and denied that he had assaulted arjundas Khurana with a knife or any other person. He stated that Laxmandas taneja and Charanjit Sharma beat him and injured him with a knife so that be fall down unconscious at the boundary gate. Persons collected there could not bear the injustice done to him and, therefore, assaulted Laxmandas Taneja, charanjit Sharma and Arjundas. He stated that Laxmandas Taneja, in collusion with Charanjit Sharma, wanted to grab the quarter allotted to him and he had gone there only to secure possession of the quarter in the company of his wife Shrimati Punamma George and brother-in-law A. G. Umman. ( 13. ) BEFORE us, Shri S. C. Datt, Advocate for the appellant, did not dispute that a quarrel took place in the precincts of quarter No. 387 of Govindpura, Bhopal in which the appellant, the deceased Arjundas Khurana, Laxmandas Taneja and Charanjit Sharma had received injuries. Shri Datt admitted that Arjundas Khurana is dead and that his death was homicidal. His contention, however, was that Arjundas Khurana was not assaulted by the appellant, but by the persons who had collected there after he had fallen down unconscious. Shri Datt admitted that Arjundas Khurana is dead and that his death was homicidal. His contention, however, was that Arjundas Khurana was not assaulted by the appellant, but by the persons who had collected there after he had fallen down unconscious. Shri Datt put forth two pronged defences: (i) that the appellant himself was a victim of assault and, therefore, if it is proved that he was the author of the stab wounds on the person of the deceased, he had acted in exercise of right of defence of person; and (ii) that this was a sudden fight resulting in a quarrel and, therefore, exception 4 to section 300, Indian Penal Code was clearly attracted. We will, therefore, proceed to examine the prosecution evidence to find out whether the appellant was the person who stabbed the deceased and whether his act came within the purview of exception 4 to section 300 of the Indian penal Code. ( 14. ) THE evidence of Shrimati Chanchal Taneja (P. W. 1), Laxmandas taneja (P. W. 3) and Charanjit Sharma (P. W. 4) established that the quarter in question was allotted to the appellant as per order Ex. P-22 and in that quarter, instead of the appellant, Charanjit Sharma (P. W. 4) was living, admittedly with the consent of the appellant. According to Charanjit Sharma, he vacated the quarter and then Laxmandas Taneja (P. W. 3) occupied the same quarter. The date of occupation of the quarter by Laxmandas Taneja is in dispute. It may be either 17-7-75 or 19-7-75, but admittedly on 20-7-1975, the date of incident, Laxmandas Taneja and his wife were in occupation of this quarter. Ex. P-21 is the report of the Estate Inspector who found L. D. Taneja in occupation of Quarter No. N 3/387 on 20-7-1975. The oral evidence, together with this certificate Ex. P-21 conclusively established that on 20-7-1975, L. D. Taneja was in actual possession of the disputed quarter. ( 15. ) THERE is other evidence to establish the possession of L. D. Taneja ex. P-5 is the rent receipt dated 1-5-1974 signed by the appellant in which he had acknowledged receipt of Rs. 70. 00 only as rent of quarter No. 387 from l. D. Taneja. ( 15. ) THERE is other evidence to establish the possession of L. D. Taneja ex. P-5 is the rent receipt dated 1-5-1974 signed by the appellant in which he had acknowledged receipt of Rs. 70. 00 only as rent of quarter No. 387 from l. D. Taneja. The appellants explanation that he had signed blank paper is of no consequence, because in the normal course, an educated person of the status of a steno Typist would not sign blank papers. The appellant had not disputed his signature and when the receipt was shown to Shri Homa, he told the appellant that he had cut his own hands and at that time, the appellant had to keep quiet when Shri Homa, seeing this receipt, went away. Ex. P-7 is the application for allotment dated 22-5-1974 of L. D. Taneja whereby he had applied for allotment of the same quarter in his name stating therein that he was residing in that quarter on rent. Ex. D-7 dated 11-7-1974 is the application of the appellant himself in which he has mentioned that one of his friends, Shri Taneja, was residing with him in that quarter since May 1974. The appellant has further admitted in this application Shri Taneja was living in that quarter. This confirmed that Shri L. D. Taneja was in occupation of the disputed quarter. ( 16. ) THE defence evidence also established beyond doubt that on 20-7-1975, l. D. Taneja and his family were in occupation of the disputed quarter. Smt. Panama George (D. W. 1), the wife of the appellant, stated that when she, in the company of her husband, the appellant, went to the quarter, they were informed by a woman inside the quarter that Shri Taneja was living therein. She admitted that Shri Homa was there and Shri Taneja had shown him a writing. Thus the prosecution as well as the defence evidence, together with the documents stated above, established beyond doubt that on 20-7-1975, Shri taneja was in actual possession of the quarter. The prosecution and the defence evidence brought out an admitted position that though the quarter was in possession of Shri Taneja, the appellant, his wife and children, along with other persons, went to this quarter and demanded possession of the same. The prosecution and the defence evidence brought out an admitted position that though the quarter was in possession of Shri Taneja, the appellant, his wife and children, along with other persons, went to this quarter and demanded possession of the same. Shrimati punamma (D. W. 1) even admitted that there was exchange of hot words and quarrel between her husband, Charanjit Sharma and Taneja. ( 17. ) THE evidence on record, therefore, indicated that the appellant had gone there to obtain possession, if necessary by force. The appellant could not take the law in his own hand if Shri Taneja had occupied the quarter unauthorisedly, then the appellant should have taken recourse against him either by approaching the Estate Officer or the police, but he himself could not go there and demand possession under show of force. In the circumstances, the appellant himself was an aggressor and, therefore, he could not claim any right of defence of person or property. ( 18. ) REGARDING presence of injuries on the person of the appellant, it is apparent that they were superficial in nature and it is possible that the appellant sustained them during scuffle while he was attacking the deceased and other persons. A look at the injuries of the injured persons and their comparison with those on the person of the appellant will clearly indicate that it was the appellant who was holding the knife in his hand and was attacking the persons. On the person of the deceased, there were three incised wounds as found by dr. Shukla (P. W. 8 ). ( 19. ) ACCORDING to Dr. Hireshchandra (P. W. 21), there were 4 or 5 external injuries on the person of the deceased with serious internal damage. On the person of L. D. Taneja, there was an incised wound skin deep on the left arm lower third, lateral aspect and an incised wound on the bridge of the nose, skin deep. As compared with these injuries, the appellants injuries were superficial as stated by Dr. Shukla. The serious injuries on the person of Arjundas indicated that he was subjected to a ruthless attack by a knife whose blade was 11 c. m. long with a handle of 14 c. m. Injury No. 3 on the body of Arjundas could be caused if the knife entered upto a distance of 14 cms. Shukla. The serious injuries on the person of Arjundas indicated that he was subjected to a ruthless attack by a knife whose blade was 11 c. m. long with a handle of 14 c. m. Injury No. 3 on the body of Arjundas could be caused if the knife entered upto a distance of 14 cms. The injuries on the body of the deceased and his two companions indicated direct attack and not that they were caused accidentally or during scuffle. The appellant has suppressed this part which has been clearly established by the evidence of Shrimati Chanchal Taneja (P. W. 1), L. D. Taneja (P. W. 3) and Charanjit Sharma (P. W. 4 ). ( 20. ) SHRIMATI Punamma (D. W. 1) stated that Taneja had a knife in his hand and Shri Sharma had caught hold of him, but she does not explain the injuries sustained by the deceased Arjundas. A. G. Umman (D. W. 2), brother in law of the appellant, is also silent regarding the injuries of Arjundas. Their contention that the persons who had collected there had assaulted L. D. Taneja, sharma and the deceased not be accepted. ( 21. ) EX. P-1, the report of the incident, was lodged by Shrimati Chanchal taneja (P. W. 1) at 8. 40 p. m, on 20-7-1975 within 11/2 hours of the occurrence, which lends full corroboration to the prosecution version. Ex. P-26 is the report lodged by the appellant himself in which he also admitted that Shri taneja, his wife and another person were present inside the quarter and that he not only questioned them as to how they had occupied the quarter, but also attempted to enter inside the quarter. Though in this report, he has stated that shri Taneja had assaulted him with a knife, yet there is no reference that the persons collected there had assaulted either Shri Taneja or Arjundas. Thus the defence version that Arjundas was subjected to assault by persons collected there is definitely an after thought and is clearly false. It is established beyond doubt that the appellant was the aggressor, he had gone there to force his way in the quarter by show of force and when prevented, he assaulted L. D Taneja and sharma and also severally assaulted Arjundas who was definitely an intervener. ( 22. It is established beyond doubt that the appellant was the aggressor, he had gone there to force his way in the quarter by show of force and when prevented, he assaulted L. D Taneja and sharma and also severally assaulted Arjundas who was definitely an intervener. ( 22. ) IN these circumstances, the question is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exception 4 to section 300 of the I. P. C. The exception runs as under: exception 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 offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation-It is immaterial in such cases which party offers provocation or commits the first assault. Thus the requirement is that the sudden fight must be without premeditation and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The facts established in this case excluded any possibility of a sudden fight without premeditation, because the evidence established beyond doubt that the appellant had gone there duly determined and armed to force his way into the quarter. As stated above, the appellant did not prefer the legal course of approaching the Estate Officer or the police, but he went there duly armed which indicated that he had gone there with the prior determination to meet the situation which might develop on the spot. Thus it could not be said that the fight developed without premeditation. ( 23. ) IN Sarjug Prasad v The State, ( AIR 1959 Pat. 66 .), what is meant by undue advantage or acting in unusual manner, has been stated in the following words : "the expression undue advantage as used in Exception 4 to section 300 means unfair advantage and cannot be limited to a case where the victim is made physically incapable to defend himself. An assailant cannot but be said to have taken undue advantage of his victim if the latter is taken completely unawares and is struck when he does not even suspect that he is about to be struck. Furthermore, no reasonable person can expect that a man would whip out a knife and strike another on a vital part of the body with it on account of a petty quarrel. Furthermore, no reasonable person can expect that a man would whip out a knife and strike another on a vital part of the body with it on account of a petty quarrel. If the weapon or manner of attack by the assailant is out of all proportion to the offence given, that circumstance must be taken into consideration for deciding whether undue advantage has been taken. In such a case, the assailant must also be held to have acted in an unusual manner. " ( 24. ) CHAMRU Budhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, ( AIR 1954 SC 652 .) dealt with a case of severe exchange of abuses between the parties preceding the incident, during the abuses the tempo rose and both the parties came out of their respective houses in anger and in that course of quarrel, the appellant dealt a fatal blow on the head of the deceased with his Lathi. Shri Datt for the appellant relied on this case, but this does not help him, because it was the appellant who had gone duly armed to pick up a quarrel and to force his entry into the quarter. In our case, the weapon used was a knife and not a lathi and there were more than one injuries of serious nature on the body of the deceased. In the circumstances, this case does not help the appellant. ( 25. ) LALSINGH and another v. The Crown, (48 Cr. L J 786 (1947 ).) dealt with a case of sudden quarrel in which the appellant and the deceased exchanged blows. People separated them. The accused then ran towards his house close by and returned with a deadly weapon by which he struck a blow on the vital part of the deceased who was standing unguarded and thereby caused on injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It was held that the offence was murder and exception 4 to section 300, Indian Penal Code had no application. Our case is more or less the same. Shri L. D. Taneja and the appellant exchanged abuses in which Shri Homa intervened and on production of the rent receipt of the appellant, he refused to intervene. It was held that the offence was murder and exception 4 to section 300, Indian Penal Code had no application. Our case is more or less the same. Shri L. D. Taneja and the appellant exchanged abuses in which Shri Homa intervened and on production of the rent receipt of the appellant, he refused to intervene. Thus the quarrel ended there but for the aggressive attitude of the appellant who struck repeated knife blows on an unguarded person Arjundas and thus the offence in question will not be covered by exception 4 to section 300, Indian Penal Code, but will be one of murder. ( 26. ) IN this connection reference may be made to Sunnu Muduli v. Emperor, (48 Cr. L J 838 (1947 ).) where the following observations will definitely negative the appellants contention of benefit of exception 4 to section 300 of the Indian Penal code: "the proper test of the applicability of Exception IV to section 300 is whether or not the accused shows that he acted solely out of provocation engendered by the heat of a sudden quarrel followed by a sudden fight. There may be cases where a word or gesticulation may be regarded as being so provocatory as to make it clear that the accused did act solely and excusably out of provocation. But such cases are rare and they fall more appropriately within Exception than Exception IV to section 300. The ordinary inference, where one person picks up a knife and stabs another in stomach merely following an exchange of heated words, is that the former has acted out of some other motive as well as the provocation. But such a person cannot be heard to say that he did not know that his act was so imminently dangerous that it would, in all probability, result in an injury likely to cause death. Every sane man must be deemed to have that knowledge. " ( 27. ) IN Babu alias Bulbul Peerakhan of Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1968 MPLJ 745.)the following observations be relevant : "the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the case comes under Exception 4 to section 300, Indian Penal Code. Every sane man must be deemed to have that knowledge. " ( 27. ) IN Babu alias Bulbul Peerakhan of Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1968 MPLJ 745.)the following observations be relevant : "the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the case comes under Exception 4 to section 300, Indian Penal Code. Exception 4 comes into operation when it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, if there are only two persons present, one is killed and the other is killer, it is the killer who has to explain the circumstances under which killing took place. He has not offered any explanation. The evidence on record does not at all show that the killing was done under grave and sudden provocation. The knife has been produced in the Court. It has a handle and it is 13" long and the blade is half of its length. In the case of the supreme Court referred to above, there was evidence of grave and sudden provocation and the weapon used was lathi. In the instant case, the weapon used is a dagger and even assuming that there was sudden fight, we do not think Exception 4 will apply in this case. There is enough evidence on record of appellants thrusting knife in the chest of the deceased. There is nothing on record to indicate that he had intended to cause a different injury. A man is always presumed to have intended the consequences of his act. " ( 28. ) IN Siyasharan v. State of M, P. , (1971 J L J Note 108.), it is held that in order to apply exception 4 to section 300, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to prove three things : (1) there was a sudden fight; (2) there was absence of pre meditation; and (3) no undue advantage was taken for the act of cruelty perpetrated. In our case, the appellant had gone there with premeditation to use force, if necessary, and he definitely took undue advantage and perpetrated an act of cruelty by severally assaulting Arjundas who was only an intervener. In our case, the appellant had gone there with premeditation to use force, if necessary, and he definitely took undue advantage and perpetrated an act of cruelty by severally assaulting Arjundas who was only an intervener. Our case is fully covered by Narayanan Nair Raghvan Nair v. The State of Travancore cochin, (A I R 1956 SC 99.) which runs as under- "the fight was between V and the accused. The deceased had no hand in it. He did not even try to separate the assaillants. All he did was to ask V to stop fighting and said that he would settle their dispute. The accused thereupon stabbed the deceased causing injury resulting in death. Held that the exception requires that no undue advantage be taken of the other side. It was impossible to say that there was no undue advantage when the accused stabbed the unarmed person who made no threat ening gesture and merely asked the accuseds opponent to stop fighting. Then also, the fight must be with the person who is killed. Here the fight was between V and the accused. The exception, therefore, did not apply. " ( 29. ) IN view of the above, it is crystal clear that the appellant definitely took undue advantage and acted with cruelty and used force which was out of all proportion. Arjundas was not outside the quarter initially and came out after he saw L. D. Taneja and Charanjit Sharma being assaulted by the appellant. The moment Arjundas came out, the appellant assaulted him, though he had shown no threatening or menacing attitude towards the appellant. In view of the law as stated above, we are definitely of the view that exception 4 to section 300, Indian Penal Code is not at all attracted in this case. ( 30. ) THE evidence of Dr. Shukla (P. W. 8) disclosed that under injury no. 3, intestine and mesentery were protruding out of the wound. These injuries could be caused by sharp object and injuries 2 and 3 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. ( 31. ) THE evidence of Dr. Hireshchandra (P. W. 21) who performed the post mortem examination, disclosed that the tract of wound No. 3 passed superficially to the stomach and perforated the left lobe of the liver and damaged the porta hapatis. ( 31. ) THE evidence of Dr. Hireshchandra (P. W. 21) who performed the post mortem examination, disclosed that the tract of wound No. 3 passed superficially to the stomach and perforated the left lobe of the liver and damaged the porta hapatis. Depth of the wound was 16 c. m. s. Under wound No. 5, the tract had cut the walls, the peritoneum and coils of intestine. The wounds were ante mortem in nature and injury No. 3 was fatal. Death was due to the stab wounds of the abdomen, particularly wound No. 3, causing shock and haemorrhage. ( 32. ) THUS the appellant used a dangerous weapon like a knife the blade of which was 11 cms. and handle 14 c. m. s. and used the same repeatedly on vital parts of the body causing serious internal damage. The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the victim. These facts established that the appellant intended to cause the injuries with the help of knife and caused them which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The intention to kill is apparent and, therefore, the act of the appellant would definitely be within the purview of section 302 of the Indian penal Code. ( 33. ) IN the circumstances, we are definitely of the view that the appellant had neither the right of defence of person, nor was he entitled to the benefit of exception 4 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. He took undue advantage and acted with cruelty in attacking an unarmed person who had exhibited no aggressive or menacing attitude against him, by repeatedly striking at him with a dangerous weapon like knife and causing serious injuries on vital parts of the body. He had definitely intended to kill him and hence he was rightly convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment for life appears to be proper. We find no ground to interfere in the conviction and the sentence. Also see : Hardevsingh and another v. The state of Punjab, ( AIR 1975 SC 179 .) and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1958 SC 465 . ). ( 34. ) FOR the reasons given above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. We find no ground to interfere in the conviction and the sentence. Also see : Hardevsingh and another v. The state of Punjab, ( AIR 1975 SC 179 .) and Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, ( AIR 1958 SC 465 . ). ( 34. ) FOR the reasons given above, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Conviction of the appellant Majin Thomas George under section 302 of the indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.