Varadarajan, J.-The accused Pilleesappa alias Muniappa was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Dharmapuri Division in S.C. No. 52 of 1976 for an offence of murder of one Annaiappa, the brother of P.W. 1 by stabbing him with a bichuva on his chest at about 7 P.M. on 5th July, 1976 at Chinnakodipalli Village, found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 2. The accused is a married person; but his wife was living at the time of the occurrence in this case in her mother’s house and not with the accused. The accused was a rowdy in his village and he used to misbehave with women in the village. Saradambal (P.W.4) is the wife of Kempiah (P.W.1) P.Ws. 1 and 4 and the deceased and P.W.1’s younger brother Muniappa, who had not been called as a witness, were living along with Muniveeramma the mother of P.W.1, and others in the house of P.W.1 at Chinnakodipalli village. P.W.4 was 20 years of old and had been married to P.W.1 about two years prior to the date of her examination viz., in or about April, 1975. She has a daughter who was 7 months old in April, 1977. She knows the accused. On the day of the occurrence at about 6 p.m. P.W.4 went to fetch drinking water from Arasarakuttai situate 11 furlongs south of Chinnakodiapalli village. When she was going to fetch water, the accused caught hold of her hands and dragged and tried to misbehave with her. But she got herself released from the hands of the accused and ran away home without taking any water from the Kuttai. This incident took place in the Oni while P.W.4 was on her way to fetch water from the Kuttai. P.W.4 went home and informed her husband, P.W.1, about what happened in the Oni. This was at about 6.15 p.m. Thereafter P.W.1 went to Basaweswara Temple situate in the village and sat down. When P.W.1, was sitting at the temple, the accused came from the eastern side and he questioned the accused about his misbehaviour with P.W.4. The accused pushed P.W.1 down. One Muniswamy, a teacher in Koranoor residing at Chinnakodipalli village, who had not been called as a witness, went there and advised the accused that the matter might be discussed in the Panchayat and went away. The accused pushed P.W.1 down. One Muniswamy, a teacher in Koranoor residing at Chinnakodipalli village, who had not been called as a witness, went there and advised the accused that the matter might be discussed in the Panchayat and went away. P.W.1 followed the accused and he was followed by Muniswamy and Veeranna (P.W.2) and they all went to Bajanai Madam situate in in the village at about 7 p.m. when a tube-light was burning in front of the Madam. At that time the deceased came from the one Parvathamma’s house and caught hold of the shirt of the accused and asked him as to why he beat his brother, P.W.1. Then the accused took out a bichuva from his waist and stabbed the deceased in the chest regi6n with a bichuva like M.O. 1 and ran away with the bichuva. The deceased fell down and died, before Basavarai (P.W.3) residing at Chinnakondipalli village brought some water from his house. P.W.2 who resides near Basaweswara temple and knows the accused and the deceased, witnessed the occurrence. P.W.3 also witnessed the occurrence. The accused ran away with the bichuva after stabbing the deceased, and nobody was able to catch hold of him. Subsequently P.W.1 went to the village Munsif of Pedda Madagondapalli village P.W.5 at about 9 p.m. on the same day and gave the report Exhibit P-1, which was recorded by P.W.5. P.W.5 got it attested by P.Ws. 2 and 3, who went there sometime after P.W.1 reached that place. P.W.5 prepared yadhasts Exhibits P-2 and P-3 and sent Exhibits P-1 and P-2 at 11.30 p.m. to the Thali Police Station through the Thalayari P.W.7 and Exhibit P.3 to the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Hosur, through the Thalayari Muniappan. Subsequently P.W.5 went to the scene of the occurrence and remained near the dead body of the the deceased. 3. The then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Thali, P.W.11, received Exhibits P-1 and P.2 from P.W.7 at 5 a.m. on 6th July, 1976 and registered a case in Crime No. 98 of 1976 under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and prepared the First Information Report Exhibit P-14. He sent the express First Information Reports to the concerned Officers and reached the scene of the occurrence at 7.30 a.m. on the same day by walk and assisted the Sub-Inspector of Police, Denkanikottai, who also came there at that time. He sent the express First Information Reports to the concerned Officers and reached the scene of the occurrence at 7.30 a.m. on the same day by walk and assisted the Sub-Inspector of Police, Denkanikottai, who also came there at that time. The then Sub-Inspector of Police, Denkanikottai, P.W.12 who was in charge as Inspector of Police, Denkanikottai received the First Information Report in this case at 6.30 a.m. on 6th July, 1975. He reached the scene of the occurrence at 7-30. a.m. and prepared an observation mahazar, Exhibit P-4 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 8.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. and examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and others during the inquest. Exhibit P-15 is the inquest report. He prepared the rough sketch Exhibit P-16 of the scene of the occurrence and recovered the blood-stained clothes, M.Os. 2 to 5 of the deceased at 11-3.0 a.m. under the mahazar Exhibit P-5 and M.O. 6, the bloodstained earth from the place where the dead body was lying under the mahazar Exhibit P.6. at 11.40 a.m. in the presence of P.W.5. Subsequently he sent the body of the deceased for autopsy through the police constable, P.W.8. The accused, who was searched for by P.W.12, was found to be absconding. 4. The Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Hosur, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Annaiyappa at about 4.30 p.m. on 6th July, 1976. He found on the body an incised wound 1“X”¾ X 1“situate 1” away from the mid line and 4“below the right mid clavicle line on the right side of the chest front. On dissection of the external injury he found that the 5th rib was completely cut 1”. away from the mid line with clotted blood around the wound. There were also incised wounds 1“X¼” lung deep over the right lung on the lower part of the lower lobe and a punctured would ¾“X¼” over the right ventricle of the heart with 150 grams of clotted blood in the therasic cavity and around the heart. The Doctor is of opinion that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury to the right lung and heart, that the injury was necessarily fatal and that the deceased would have died instantaneously about 21 to 22 hours prior to autopsy. The Doctor is of opinion that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury to the right lung and heart, that the injury was necessarily fatal and that the deceased would have died instantaneously about 21 to 22 hours prior to autopsy. He is further of the opinion that the injury could have been caused by a single stab with a weapon like M.O. 1. Exhibit P-9 is the post-mortem certificate. 5. The police const able P.W.8 removed the cloths M.Os. 2 to 5 from the body of the deceased and produced them at the police station after the autospy. 6. P.W.13 arrested the accused on 27th July, 1976 at about 7-30 P.M. on Aruppalli-Hosur Road and recovered the knife, M.O. 1, from him under Exhibit P-7 in the presence of P.W.6 and another. He sent M.O. 1 to the Court. The then Inspector of Police, Devkanikottai, P.W.14 took up further investigation on 10th July, 1976 after his return from leave. The properties were sent to the Court and a requisition was submitted for ending them to the Chemical examiner. 7. The Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Hosur, sent the properties to the Chemical Examiner and received the reports Exhibit P.12 and P-13 of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist respectively. The Chemical Examiner detected blood on M.Os. 2 to 6. The Serologist found that the blood on M.Os. 2 to 6 belonged to A.B. Group. After completing the investigation, P.W.14 laid the charge-sheet in this case on 11th August, 1976. 8. When questioned about the circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence, the accused admitted that there was a tube-light burning in front of the Bhajanai Madam and he denied all the other circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. He produced the voters’ list along with a statement to show that his wife Mariamma was a member of his family in January, 1975. He does not examine any witness on his behalf. 9. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of P.W.3, who was cited as an eyewitness, and accepted the evidence of the other witnesses and found the accused guilty as charged and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life as stated above. 10. The prosecution has let in the evidence of P.Ws. 9. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of P.W.3, who was cited as an eyewitness, and accepted the evidence of the other witnesses and found the accused guilty as charged and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life as stated above. 10. The prosecution has let in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5 regarding the motive for the accused, to have quarrelled with P.W.1 and subsequently attacked the deceased. The evidence of P.W.5, the Villages Munsif of Pedda Madagondapalli is that the accused is married; but his wife was living in her mother’s house and not with the accused at the time of the occurrence in this case. P.W.4, who is only 20 years of old and had been married to P.W.1 in or about April, 1975 and had a daughter who was seven months old at the time of her examination in Court on 22nd April, 1977 has stated that when she was going to fetch water from Arasarakuttai situate about 1½ furlongs south of Chinnakodaipalli village Where she lives, the accused caught hold of her hands in the Oni when she was proceeding towards the Kuttai and tried to misbehave with her. She managed to get released from the hold of the accused and ran home without taking water from the Kuttai and informed her husband, P.W.1, about what happened in the Oni. The evidence of P.W.4 that she informed her husband about what happened in the Oni earlier is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 that on the day of the occurrence, P.W.4, who went take water from Arasarakuttai returned at 6 15 p.m. without bringing any water and told him that the accused came to her and misbehaved with her and attempted to outrage her modesty, P.Ws. 1 and 4 belong to a respectable family and are only 24 and 20 years old respectively. It is not probable that P.W.4, a married woman would falsely say that when she was going in the Oni for fetching drinking water from Arasarakuttai situate south of the village, the accused caught hold of her hands and attempted to misbehave with her, if the accused had, in fact, not done so. The evidence of P.W.1 establishes clearly that P.W.4 returned without fetching water from the Kuttai and that she told him that the accused misbehaved with her and attempted to outrage her modesty. The evidence of P.W.1 establishes clearly that P.W.4 returned without fetching water from the Kuttai and that she told him that the accused misbehaved with her and attempted to outrage her modesty. P.W.4 would not have returned without fetching water from Arasarakuttai if the accused had not attempted to misbehave with her by catching hold of h6r hands. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has established that the accused caught hold of the hands of P.W.4 when she was going to Arasarakuttai at about 6 a.m. on the day of the occurrence for fetching drinking water and that she thereupon returned home without taking water from the Kuttai and informed her husband about it. P.W.1 has stated that on the day of the occurrence itself he questioned the accused as to why he misbehaved with his wife and he was pushed down by the accused and that subsequently he went to the Bhajanai Madam along with Muniswamy and P.W.2 at about 7 a.m. when the tube-light in front of the Bhajanai Madam was burning. The prosecution has thus established satisfactorily the motive for the accused pushing down P.W.1 and subsequently attacking the deceased. 11. The evidence of P.W.3 that he witnessed the occurrence has been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. P.W.3 has stated that when he was sitting on the pial of his house at about 6.45. p.m. on 5th July, 1976 the date of the occurrence, P.Ws. 1, 2 and Muniswamy and the accused were coming from Basaweswara temple quarrelling with each other. The deceased went there and caught hold of the shirt of the accused and asked him as to why he beat his brother. This was in front of the Bhajanai Madam. The accused questioned the deceased as to who he was to question him and took out the bichuva M.O. 1 from his waist and stabbed the deceased on his chest and ran away with the bichuva. The deceased fell down after he had been stabbed by the accused and died by the time P.W.3 went into his house to fetch water and came back with water. But in cross-examination P.W.3 has stated that one cannot see what was happening near the temple while sitting on the pial of his house and that he saw the. occurrence only while sitting on the pial of his house. But in cross-examination P.W.3 has stated that one cannot see what was happening near the temple while sitting on the pial of his house and that he saw the. occurrence only while sitting on the pial of his house. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.3 could not have witnessed while sitting on the pial of his house the occurrence which took place near the Bhajanai Madam situate near Basaweswara temple. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.3 that he witnessed the occurrence has been rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. Then there is the evidence of only P.Ws.1 and 2 about the occurrence. P.W.1 has stated that after the accused pushed him down and Muniswamy, the teacher residing in the village intervened and stated that the matter might be discussed in the Panchayat the accused went away. But he (P.W.1) followed by P.W.2 and Muniswamy, who has not been examined, went to the Bhajanai Madam at about 7 P.M. when the tube light was burning in front of the Bhajanai Madam. Then the deceased went there and caught hold of the shirt of the accused and questioned him about why he beat him (P.W.1). Then the accused took out a bichuva like M.O. 1 from his waist and stabbed the deceased on his chest region and ran away with the bichuva. The deceased fell down and died by the time P.W.3 brought water from his house. P.Ws. 2 and 3 and three others Muniswamy, Munninanjappa and Kunchappa, who have not been examined also witnessed the occurrence. According to P.W.1, P.W.2 has stated that when he was standing near his house in Chinnakodapalli village about 6.45 p.m. on the day of the occurrence, he saw the accused and P.W.1 having a struggle near Baseweswara temple and he advised them to have the matter settled amicably. The accused and P.W.1 went away. Muniswamy. and P.W.2 went one behind the other towards the Bhajanai Madam where the accused and P.W.1 were proceeding. The electric tube-light was burning in front of that Bhajanai Madam. Then the deceased came and caught hold the shirt of the accused and questioned him as to why he beat P.W.1. The accused and P.W.1 went away. Muniswamy. and P.W.2 went one behind the other towards the Bhajanai Madam where the accused and P.W.1 were proceeding. The electric tube-light was burning in front of that Bhajanai Madam. Then the deceased came and caught hold the shirt of the accused and questioned him as to why he beat P.W.1. It is the evidence of P.W.2 also that the accused took out the bichuva, M.O. 1, from his waist at that time and pierced the chest of the deceased and that the deceased fell down by the time P.W.3 brought water for the deceased. It has been admitted by the accused in his statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that an electric tube-light was burning in front of the Bhajanai Madam at the time of the occurrence in this case. P.Ws. and 2 could therefore have seen the occurrence though it took place at 7 p.m. 13. It has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that when P.W.4 informed him about what happened in the Oni, he informed the deceased about it when the deceased was feeding his cattle on the pial of his house. He has denied that the deceased was sleeping at that time in Parvathammal’s house. He has also denied the suggestion that the deceased used to commit theft in the gardens and that the occurrence did not take place in the manner mentioned by him and he has foisted the case against the accused at the instance of one Lakshmi Narayana a teacher, P.W.2 has denied the suggestion that the occurrence did not take place opposite to the Bhajanai Madam as stated by him, that the case has been fabricated by himself and others including Lakshmi Narayana and that exhibit P-1 was written next morning and his signature was taken in it only at that time. An attempt was made to show that P.W.2 has an enmity with the accused. He has admitted that he has married the sister of Muniswamy, the teacher and he has stated that formerly the school was situated in the house of the accused and that they vacated the house because it was in a bad condition. An attempt was made to show that P.W.2 has an enmity with the accused. He has admitted that he has married the sister of Muniswamy, the teacher and he has stated that formerly the school was situated in the house of the accused and that they vacated the house because it was in a bad condition. He has denied the suggestion that there was any dispute between him and Muniswamy on the one hand and the accused on the other as a result of the school being shifted from the house of the accused. What has been elected in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is not sufficient to discredit their evidence that it is the accused who attacked the deceased with bichuva like M.O. 1. P.W.5 has denied the suggestion that P.W.1’s report Exhibit P-1 which he has written, was prepared after the inquest at the place where the inquest was held. There is no material on record from which it could be held that the report Exhibit P-1 was not recorded by P.W.5 at 9 p.m. on 5th July, 1976 at Pedda Madagondaplli which is situate about 7 miles away from the Thali Police Station. In the report given within about two hours after the occurrence P.W.1 has referred to the incident which took place at 6 p.m., when P.W.4 went for bringing drinking water from the pond and about his questioning the accused about the matter in front of Baseweswara temple in the village. He has also mentioned about the accused beating him and questioning him about who he was to ask him about happened to P.W.4 on the way to the pond. He also stated in Exhibit P-1 that on hearing the alarm raised by him after he had been beaten by the accused, the deceased came and caught hold of the shirt of the accused in front of the Bhajanai Madam and asked him as to why he beat his brother and that the accused then whipped out a bichuva knife from his waist and stabbed him on his chest and ran away into his house. There is no discrepancy between evidence of P.W.1 on the one hand and what had been stated by him in Exhibit P-1 on the other regarding not only the motive, but also the attack on the deceased by the accused. There is no discrepancy between evidence of P.W.1 on the one hand and what had been stated by him in Exhibit P-1 on the other regarding not only the motive, but also the attack on the deceased by the accused. The medical evidence of P.W.9, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased also corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 regarding the attack in so far as they say that the accused stabbed the deceased on his chest for the injury found by P.W.9, on the body of the deceased was in the chest region. In these circumstances, we find on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that it is the accused who caused the necessarily fatal injury on the body of the deceased and caused his immediate death as a result of the same. It would follow that the offence committed by the accused would ordinarily be murder punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 14. The learned Counsel for the accused invited our attention to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and placed reliance on some decisions, which will be referred to presently, and submitted that this is a case in which the recused attacked the deceased in the exercise of his right of private defence and has exceeded the same and also that the case would fall under Exception (2) or Exception (4) to section 300, Indian Penal Code. The evidence relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused as regards P.W.1 is the admission of P.W.1 that the accused pushed him down, that he and the accused went thereafter along with P.W.2 to Bhajanai Madam at about 7 p.m., that the deceased came there and caught hold of the shirt of the accused and asked him as to why he beat P.W.1 and that at that time apart from P.W.1 and the deceased P.Ws. 2 and 3 and three other persons, Muniswamy, Muninanjappa and Kunchappa were also present, P.W.1 has also stated in his evidence that while the accused went away from the scene, he followed him and both of them went abusing with each other, that the deceased questioned the accused about the incident relating to P.W.4 and caught hold of the shirt of the accused and all the eye witnesses including Muniswamy, Muninanjappa and Kunchappa were at a distance of about 5 feet from the scene of the occurrence when the occurence took place. The evidence of P.W.2 is that when the accused came near to which reference was made by the learned Counsel for the accused the Bhajanai Madam, the deceased came and caught hold of the shirt of the accused and questioned him as to why he beat P.W.1, that the accused took out the bichuva from his waist and pierced the chest of the deceased and that P.Ws. 1 and 3 Muniswamy, Muninanjappa and Kunchappa were present and they witnessed the occurrence. P.W.2 has further stated that P.W.1 and the accused bear each other and that as soon as the deceased caught hold the shirt of the accused, the latter stabbed him immediately. It is not possible to infer from this evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that there could have been any apprehension in the mind of the accused that grievous hurt would otherwise be the consequence of the assault when he attacked the deceased with the bichuva on the chest region. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this is not the case of the accused causing the injury on the deceased in the exercise of any right of private defence of his person or in that process exceeding his right of private defence. Exceptions (2) and (4) to section 300, read as follows: "Exception (2).-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purposes of such defence. Exception (4)-Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premediation 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." Exception (2) will not apply to the facts of the present case. We have already found that this is not a case of the accused exercising any right of private defence of his person. Exception (4) would not apply as this is not a case where the accused has inflicted the injury without premediation in a sudden fight in the heat of passions upon a sudden quarrel and without taking undue advantage or without acting in a cruel and unusual manner. The accused had a little before the actual occurrence in this case, been beaten by P.W.1. The deceased came a little later and he merely caught hold of the shirt of the accused and questioned him. about why he had beaten his brother, P.W.1. The evidence shows that at that time accused whipped out the bichuva from his waist and stabbed him on him chest region, as a result of which the deceased fell down and died immediately even before some water could be given to him. Therefore, it could not be stated at all that the accused had not taken any undue advantage or not acted in a cruel and unusual manner. 15. The learned Counsel for the accused invited our attention to the decision in Mahanarain v. Emperor1. This decision will not apply to the facts of the present case, for while there was a doubt in that case about how the incident happened and the benefit of that doubt has been given to the accused there is no doubt whatsoever in the present case about how the incident had taken place. As already found by us, the accused stabbed the deceased with the bichuva whipped out from his waist on the chest region immediately after the deceased caught hold of his shirt and questioned him about why he beat P.W.1. How the occurrence in the Allahabad case took place has been mentioned at page 34 of the report thus: "The origin of the fight, as already stated, is involved in obscurity. How the occurrence in the Allahabad case took place has been mentioned at page 34 of the report thus: "The origin of the fight, as already stated, is involved in obscurity. The eye-witnesses do not throw any light on the question as to who started the quarrel and as to how and why the quarrel began. As to who of the two combatants got the upper hand in the course of the right is far from clear. Whether Malkhan did or did not attempt to use his stick in the course of the fight is not certain. Again at what stage of the fight Mahanarain caused the injury to Malkhan by the knife that he had with him is impossible to say. In these circumstances it would be, in my judgment, unsafe to hold that Mahanarain did in the course of the fight take ‘undue advantage, or acted in a cruel or unusual manner,‘ within the meaning of Exception 4 to section 300, Penal Code. The evidence such as it is points to the conclusion that the quarrel was sudden and so was the fight and that Mahanarain inflicted the injury with the knife in the heat of passion." The learned Counsel for the accused relied next upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Chamru Budhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh.1The accused in that case dealt a blow on the head of the deceased with the lathi which was in his hand, as a result of which the deceased fell down and bled from the injury on the head. After he fell down another person dealt a blow to the deceased and all the three accused in that case ran into their house. The learned Judges have observed in their judgment thus: "The circumstances however as found by the Courts below were that there was a severe exchange of abuses between the parties preceding the incident, that during the abuse the tempo rose and both the parties came out of their respective houses in anger and that in the course of the quarrel the appellant dealt the fatal blow on the head of the deceased with his lathi. Even though the circumstances were such as not to bring the case within Exception. Even though the circumstances were such as not to bring the case within Exception. 1 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code,it appears that the crime was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the appellant having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner thus bringing the case within Exception 4 thereto with the result that the offence committed was culpable homicide not amounting to murder". This decision also will not apply to the facts of the present case where we have found that it could not be stated that the accused had not taken undue advantage or had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 16. The learned Counsel for the accused-appellant next relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dharman v. State of Punjab.2That decision also will not apply to the facts of the present case, for there was a sudden and free fight between the two contending parties armed with deadly weapons in that case, whereas in the present case their is no evidence to show that either P.W.1 or the deceased was armed with any deadly weapon at the time of the occurrence. 17. The next decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the accused is of a Bench of this Court in The Public Prosecutor v. Somasundaram and others3. That decision also will not apply to the facts of the present case, for the evidence in that case showed that the offence was 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 acting in a cruel or unusual manner. In that case in the course of the quarrel both the parties had sustained injuries, whereas the accused in the present case had not sustained any injury whatsoever. 18. In that case in the course of the quarrel both the parties had sustained injuries, whereas the accused in the present case had not sustained any injury whatsoever. 18. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor invited our attention to an earlier decision of this Court in Thaghathi Poonattil Velayudhan Nair v. Emperor.4In that case it was found that the appellant and his companion were the aggressors and that the appellant took out a knife and stabbed the deceased without provocation and in circumstances which did not allow of a plea of self-defence and the injuries on the appellant were found to have been received after he had stabbed the deceased. The learned Judges have observed that the case did not come within the fourth Exception to section 300, Indian Penal Code, and that it must be shown that the accused did not take undue advantage or had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. They have further observed that when a person took out a knife and stabbed another person who was unarmed, he undoubtedly took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner and, therefore, such a case could not be treated as one falling within Exception 4 to section 300. Indian Penal Code. In the present case also the accused had whipped out the bichuva from his waist and attacked the deceased, who was unarmed, when the deceased merely caught hold of the shirt of the accused and questioned him as to why he beat his brother P.W.1. This decision will apply to the facts of the present case and we have no hesitation in holding that neither Exception 2 nor Exception 4 would apply to the present case. The offence committed by the accused would clearly be murder punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code. We accordingly find that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in holding that the accused was guilty of the offence of murder and convicting and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 19. We confirm the conviction and the sentence and dismiss the criminal appeal.