Judgment :- Sivasubramaniam, J.: This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed against the accused for an offence under Sec.302, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code for having caused the death of one Govindan by stabbing him with a suri kathi on his head and left side chest and against the conviction and sentence of two years R.I. passed against him under Sec.324, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code for having caused hurt to P.W.1 Ramakkal. 2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows: The deceased Govindan is the brother of P.W.1. Ramakkal and they were the residents of Patnoor. One Pallan alias Vellayan and his brother Thekkan alias Pachiappan belonged to the same place and there were certain disputes between them regarding their lands. About one year prior to the occurrence on Monday, there was a panchayat in respect of the disputes between the said brothers in which the panchayatdars settled the disputes in respect of their cattle and movable properties and the panchayat was adjourned to 7.7.1983. On that day at about 2.30 P.M. the panchayat took place on a rock situated in front of the house P.W.1. One Govindaswami, who is the oor-goundar examined as P. W.2 in this case, Vedichi, Kanniappan, Pallan alias Vellayan, Thekkan alias Pachiappan, the accused, P.W.1, and her brother deceased Govindan were also present there. In that panchayat, Pallan alias Vellayan, raised objection that certain persons belonging to Selappa Chunnampatti also should be present, and unless their presence is secured, they would not agree for any settlement. At that stage, Chinnasami, who is the son of Thekkan alias Pachiappan attempted to remove Kambu grain, which was objected to by Pallan alias Vellayan. He questioned him as to why he was trying to remove the grain. Immediately the deceased intervened and questioned him as to why he should prevent Chinnaswami in removing the grain. So saying, he slapped Pallan alias Vellayan on his cheek. On seeing this, the accused rushed to his house and brought suri kathi and stabbed the deceased on his head and left chest. P.W.1, who was witnessing this attack, intervened and prevented the accused from further assaulting the deceased. The accused stabbed her also on the bottom portion of her left shoulder and dragged the knife up to the chest. On seeing this, the accused rushed to his house and brought suri kathi and stabbed the deceased on his head and left chest. P.W.1, who was witnessing this attack, intervened and prevented the accused from further assaulting the deceased. The accused stabbed her also on the bottom portion of her left shoulder and dragged the knife up to the chest. P.W.2 Vedichi and Kanniappan chased the accused; but the accused managed to run away with the knife. The injured Govindan was removed and paced in front of P.W.1’s house. Govindan was found dead. P.W.1’s another brother P.W.6 andVedichi took P.W.1 to the Government Hospital at Kaveripattinam for treatment. 3. P.W.3 Medical Officer, examined P.W.1 at 5.25 P.M. on the same day and treated her for the injuries sustained by her at about 2.30 P.M. on that day. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate issued by him. xx xx xx 7. When the accused was examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., he admitted the panchayat. But, he contended that on Thursday, when the panchayatars met for the second time, his father Pallan alias Vellayan stated that unless the people from Sellappa Chunnampatti also took part in the panchayat, he would not participate in the panchayat. Therefore the accused and his father went to Sellappa Chunnampatti. 10 bags of kambu grain were kept in the thrashing place which happens to be a rock. As nobody was found in Sellappa Chunnampatti, they returned at arbour 2.30 P.M. on the day of occurrence. On their return, the brother of the accused reported that Chinnasami, son of Thekkan and his men had taken away the entire kambu grain, When the accused and his father Pallan alias Vellayan returned to their house, he saw the deceased Govindan pushing down Pallan and then fisting him on his face and other parts of the body with his hands. He was also strangling the neck of Pallan with the help of a towel. He raised a cry, and on that, the accused hit the deceased and pushed him down. Immediately the deceased took knife and attempted to stab the accused and his father, P.W.1 came there and pacified them not to quarrel with each other, in the course of which she had also sustained an injury on her chest. He raised a cry, and on that, the accused hit the deceased and pushed him down. Immediately the deceased took knife and attempted to stab the accused and his father, P.W.1 came there and pacified them not to quarrel with each other, in the course of which she had also sustained an injury on her chest. The deceased came to stab the accused and immediately the accused snatched the knife from the hand of the deceased and threw it at him. 8. The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the entire evidence adduced in this case came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore convicted the accused as stated above. 9. Theonly question to be decided in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. There cannot be any doubt that the deceased Govindan died a homicidal death. As a matter of fact, it is not in dispute that the deceased died as a result of the stab injuries caused by the accused. Though during the trial an attempt was made by the accused to show that he acted in self-defence and he simply threw the knife on the deceased after snatching the same from him, the learned counsel for the accused has fairly conceded that such a plea may not be available to the accused. He proceeded on the basis that the accused became a victim of the circumstances and during the course of sudden fight, he stabbed the deceased with the knife, which was totally unpremeditated. 10. Sofar as the occurrence is concerned, the prosecution has established that the deceased was stabbed by the accused as a result of which he died on the spot. P.Ws.1 and 2 who were the eyewitnesses in this case, have satisfactorily established the said aspect of the case... Therefore, the only short question now to be decided is whether the accused stabbed the deceased during the course of the sudden quarrel or not. As we have already noticed, the parties assembled in the sense of occurrence for the purpose of settlement of their disputes in the presence of panchayatdars. Therefore, the only short question now to be decided is whether the accused stabbed the deceased during the course of the sudden quarrel or not. As we have already noticed, the parties assembled in the sense of occurrence for the purpose of settlement of their disputes in the presence of panchayatdars. It is seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that even before the panchayatdars could arrive at a settlement, there was an attempt on the part of one party to remove kambu grain from the thrashing floor, which was objected to by the other party. At that time it is alleged that the deceased slapped the father of the accused. It was only at that point of time, the accused took out the knife and stabbed the deceased and also caused the injury on P.W.1 who was trying to intervene in the quarrel. All these things ought to have happened within a matter of seconds or minutes. There was no time for the accused to deliberate anything before venturing to cause the injuries on the deceased and P.W.1. Therefore, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the accused stabbed the deceased only in the course of a sudden fight which was not a premeditated one. Therefore we have to find whether the accused is liable to be convicted for an offence under Sec.302, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code or is entitled to any of the Exceptions found in Sec.300, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are not enough materials to show that there was any sudden fight between the parties. According to him, the accused ran towards his house and brought the knife deliberately with a view to stab the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that in such circumstances it cannot be said that the stabbing took place in the midst of sudden fight. However, we are not able to accept the said contention since we are of the opinion that the stabbing took place only in the course of sudden quarrel. 11. Sec.300, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code contains several exceptions and so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. Exception 4 would be applicable. However, we are not able to accept the said contention since we are of the opinion that the stabbing took place only in the course of sudden quarrel. 11. Sec.300, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code contains several exceptions and so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. Exception 4 would be applicable. Exception 4 to Sec.300, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code, reads as follows;- “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: It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault” In order to see whether the said Exception is applicable, certain requirements have to be satisfied. Firstly, there must have been a sudden fight; secondly, there was no premeditation; thirdly the act must have been done in a heat of passion and fourthly, the assailant ought not to have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Courts have repeatedly held that cause of the quarrel is not relevant and similarly the number of wounds caused in the quarrel is also not a decisive factor. What is important in such cases is that the occurrence must have happened in a sudden and unpremeditated manner and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. In all cases where the accused-person took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner, court have refused to give the benefit of the said Exception. Therefore, the question of application of the said Exception would depend upon the facts of each case. If we consider the present case in the light of the above principles, we find that the present case satisfies the four ingredients above referred to. There is nothing to indicate that the accused has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Once we find that the accused was already having the knife, there is no room for coming to the conclusion that he acted in a cruel manner as alleged by the prosecution. It was only in the course of the sudden quarrel, the accused in the heat of the moment took out the knife and caused the injuries and unfortunately one of the injuries proved to be fatal. It was only in the course of the sudden quarrel, the accused in the heat of the moment took out the knife and caused the injuries and unfortunately one of the injuries proved to be fatal. Even though the doctor noticed three injuries on the deceased person, injury No.1 proved to be fatal and the other injuries are not grievous in nature. As a matter of fact, the doctor had admitted that injury No.2 in Ex.P4 is a superficial injury and the same could have been caused if two persons struggled with a weapon like M.O.1. He further admitted that injury No.3 in Ex.P4 could have been caused in the course of a quarrel. In view of the above facts, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the accused has acted in a cruel manner. So far as the injuries on P.W.1 are concerned, they arc simple in nature and they could have been caused when P.W.1 attempted to prevent the accused from stabbing the deceased person. On a consideration of these aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that the case would come under Exception 4 of Sec.300, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code, and if it is so, the accused is liable to be punished only under Sec.304, Part I, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code. 12. In theresult, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge under Sec.302, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code, are set aside and the appellant is convicted under Sec.304, Part I, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years R.I. So far as the conviction and sentence under Sec.324, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code, are concerned, they are confirmed.