BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) SO far as appellant No. 1 - accused is concerned, we are in agreement with the alternative submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellantsaccused that the offence falls within the purview of Sec. 304 Part-I of the indian Penal Code and not under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants-accused that there was sudden quarrel and in the heat of moment, accused inflicted blows on the deceased. He has further submitted that there is no enmity between the deceased and the accused persons and under the circumstances if because of sudden quarrel, accused caused injuries to the deceased resulting into the death of the deceased, it cannot be said that the accused has acted in a cruel manner and, therefore accused is entitled to Exception 4 to Sec. 300 and hence, offence falls under Sec. 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his submission, he has relied on the case of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1094 . It has been held by the Supreme Court as under : "to invoke Exception 4 to Sec. 300 four requirements must be satisfied, namely (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passing; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly. Thus where in case of quarrel between the deceased and the accused regarding possession of premises, it was reasonable to inter from the facts that the deceased must have intervened on the side of his brother and in the course of the scuffle he received injuries, one of which proved fatal, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of the Exception 4 to Sec. 300. Merely because three injuries were caused to the deceased during the scuffle, it could not be said that he had acted in a cruel and unusual manner. Under such circumstances, the accused could be convicted under Sec. 304 Part I. " ( 2 ) THERE is no dispute regarding the proposition laid down by the supreme Court in the case of Surinder Kumar (supra ). We are in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused that the offence against appellant No. 1-accused falls under Sec. 304 Part-I of the I. P. Code, and not under Sec. 302 of the I. P. Code. Hence, ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Kumar (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. As stated above, was no premeditation or intention on the part of the accused to cause death of the deceased. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any previous enmity between the parties. Incident took place all of suddenand during the heat of moment, accused No. 1 inflicted knife blows on the deceased and, therefore, in our view, the appellant No. 1-accused entitled to Exception 4 to sec. 300 of the I. P. Code. Therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed error in convicting the appellant No. 1-accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the I. P. Code and, in our view, judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in so far as it convicts appellantaccused no. 1 for the offence under Sec. 302 of the I. P. Code is concerned, requires to be quashed and set aside. Sessions Judge, in so far as it convicts appellantaccused no. 1 for the offence under Sec. 302 of the I. P. Code is concerned, requires to be quashed and set aside. In our view, offence falls within the purview of Sec. 304 Part I of the I. P. Code. So far order of conviction and sentence of appellant No. 1-accused for the offence under Sec. 135 (1) of Bombay Police act is concerned, the same is upheld. Further, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of fine imposed while convicting appellant no. 1-accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the I. P. Code, is hereby maintained. .