Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 239 (HP)

Parkash Chand v. State of H. P.

2003-08-19

ARUN KUMAR GOEL, M.R.VERMA

body2003
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.9.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the Appellant-accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC and fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 323 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that Mast Ram deceased and the accused related as brothers were residing separately in village Liungari, Barmana. On 11.7.2000 at about 5.00 p.m. Bimla Devi, wife of deceased, (PW-1) and her son Sonu (PW-2) had gone to the fields for cutting grass and the deceased was grazing Oxen near his house. At about 6.00 p.m. deceased called PW-1 from the fields intimating that accused was beating him and she should immediately come to the house. PW-1 and PW-2 came to their house and were informed by the deceased that goat of accused had entered his cow shed and when he objected to it the accused gave him fist and kick blows and ran away, while hurling stones and danda towards him. When the deceased was so narrating the incident, the accused appeared Jon the scene. On seeing the accused, the deceased tried to run away but the accused gave a danda blow on his leg, whereby the deceased fell-down. Thereafter accused gave danda blows on the head of the deceased. When PW-1 intervened to rescue her husband accused gave danda blows to her also. When PW-1 and PW-2 raised cries for help the accused bolted away. On hearing the cries, Balak Ram (PW-3) came on the spot from a nearby house. When PW-3 wanted to carry the deceased, it was noticed that he was dead. Immediately, thereafter many villagers gathered on the spot. Ram Lal (PW-4), Ward member of the Panchayat informed the police telephonically about the incident. On such information, Inspector Devi Ram (PW-12) went to the spot where he reached at about 1.00 a.m., on the night intervening ll-12th July, 2000. He recorded statement of Bimla Devi under Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) Ext. PA. On such information, Inspector Devi Ram (PW-12) went to the spot where he reached at about 1.00 a.m., on the night intervening ll-12th July, 2000. He recorded statement of Bimla Devi under Section 154 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) Ext. PA. On the basis of which, FIR Ext. PQ was recorded at Police Station Barmana and the investigation followed. 3. Police prepared inquest reports Ext. PB, Ext. PC, and the site plan Ext. PS, and took into possession a stone, a danda and one chappal from the place of occurrence vide memo Ext. PE. 4. Post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was conducted in District Hospital Bilaspur by Dr. N.K. Sankhyan (PW-5) and Dr. R.K. Gupta. The post-morterm report regarding such examination is Ext. PJ, vide which following antemortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased: 1. There was evidence of reddish coloured glazed abrasion on lateral side of lower medial quadrant of right side of chest in area of 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. 2. There was subconjuctival haemorrhage in left eye in upper temporal region. 3. There was reddish coloured abrasion in area of 0.2 cm. x 0.5 cm. (tear abrasion) on left side of noze. 4. There was evidence of reddish coloured abrasion in area of 5 cm. x 0.8 cm. over bluish green coloured contusion of size 2.5 cm. x 1 cm. on lateral side of left clavicle. 5. Reddish coloured grazed abrasion in area of 3 cm. x 2 cm. over extensor compartment of right forearm in its upper one third portion. 6. There was evidence of reddish coloured abrasion over extensor compartment of left forearm on ulnar side in area of 2.5 cm. x 1. cm. in the middle one third portion of said forearm. 7. There was evidence of reddish coloured glazed abrasion on front of right knee, in area of 2 cm. x 0.4 cm. 8. There was swelling over occipital region in area of 6 cms. x 5 cms. On dissection and after reflecting the scalp there was gross contusion over inner surface of scalp in occipital and extending to temporal region on both sides, there was evidence of contusion over the scalp bones in the above said corresponding area of scalp. 8. There was swelling over occipital region in area of 6 cms. x 5 cms. On dissection and after reflecting the scalp there was gross contusion over inner surface of scalp in occipital and extending to temporal region on both sides, there was evidence of contusion over the scalp bones in the above said corresponding area of scalp. After opening the scalp cap, there was extra dural haematoma in area over occipital region extending towards the temporal region. After opening dura there was no subdural haematoma, subarchhoid haematoma was present in occipital region of both sides and extending towards the temporal parietal region. There was no injury to the brain tissue seen with naked eye. After deep dissection of neck from back and lateral sides and after exposing the cervical vertiberal column, there was evidence of dislocation of cervical vertabra at level of C2 C3 with injury to the spinal cord. The adjoining muscles to the cervical vertebrae were contused and there was tear of ligament, muscles near C2 C3. 5. As per the provisional medical opinion, the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of injury to vital organs i.e. brain and spinal cord. The death was instantaneous or within few minutes and the time between the death and post-mortem was 12 to 24 hours. Final opinion was reserved till the receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner about the analyses of visera preserved at the time of the post-mortem examination. Vide report Ext. PL received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, it was opined that no poison/alcohol was detacted in the visera. After perusal of this report, final medical opinion Ext. PM is the same as was the provisional opinion. 6. While in police custody, the accused made a disclosure statement Ext. PF on 14.7.2000 in the presence of Ram Lal (PW-4) and one Nikka Ram regarding the danda. Pursuant to such statement danda Ext. P-l was recovered and was identified as the weapon of offence and was taken in possession vide memo Ext. PG. Ext. PH is the sketch of the danda. 7. PW-1 was also got medically examined. Ext.PN is the M.L.C. about such examination issued by Dr. Kamal Kumar (PW-6). Vide MLC Ext. PN multiple small abrasion and punctured wounds were found on the person of PW-1. As per the medical opinion, these injuries were simple caused with blunt weapon. 8. PG. Ext. PH is the sketch of the danda. 7. PW-1 was also got medically examined. Ext.PN is the M.L.C. about such examination issued by Dr. Kamal Kumar (PW-6). Vide MLC Ext. PN multiple small abrasion and punctured wounds were found on the person of PW-1. As per the medical opinion, these injuries were simple caused with blunt weapon. 8. Accused was also got medically examined and his MLC is Ext. PR. On completion of the investigation the concerned SHO forwarded the charge-sheet to the concerned Court. 9. The learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, framed a charge under Sections 302 and 323 IPC against the accused who pleaded not guilty to the said charge. To prove the charge, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code wherein he denied the commission of the crime and explained that he had good relation with the deceased and the case against him had been made because there was grappling between him and the deceased as one of his goats had entered the cow-shed of the deceased. During grappling, he was beaten up by the deceased, his wife and son and thereafter the deceased ran away towards the back side of the house. When he went to the back side of the house there was exchange of hot words between him and the deceased and the deceased again ran away and in the process he slipped and fell down as a result of which he received vital injuries and thus died because of his fault. He has further explained that PW-3 has made false statement against him because he had a boundary dispute with him and remaining two witnesses are wife and son of the deceased. The accused, however, did not lead any defence. 10. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the material on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by the accused. 11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent State and have gone through the records. 12. Learned Counsel for the accused assailed the impugned conviction on the following grounds: 1. that the police had not maintained record of information about incident given to them whereas such information was the FIR in the case and Ext. PA (formal FIR Ex. 12. Learned Counsel for the accused assailed the impugned conviction on the following grounds: 1. that the police had not maintained record of information about incident given to them whereas such information was the FIR in the case and Ext. PA (formal FIR Ex. PQ) which was recorded by the police after reaching on the spot is outcome of deliberations and consultations. 2. that there are material discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, i.e. PW-3 and other two eye witnesses who are wife and son of the deceased, hence their statements could not be relied to convict the accused. 3. that the injuries found on the person of the accused have not been explained which is fatal to the case of the prosecution, and 4. that the scuffle took place between deceased and the accused all of a sudden and there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, even if the deceased is held to have died because of any act on the part of the accused he could at the most be convicted under Section 325 or Section 304 Part II IPC. Ground No. 1 13. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that PW-4 had informed the police of the occurrence and on receipt of such information police came to the spot. However, the records of such information has not been maintained though this information in fact was the FIR in the case which creates a doubt about the version in Exs. PA and PQ inasmuch as by the time Ex. PA was recorded, sufficient time was available for consultations and deliberations. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal solely on this ground. 14. The learned Additional Advocate General, rebutting the contention of the defence, contended that no specific information regarding cognizable offence was received, and cryptic telephonic message could not be treated FIR. The police immediately after visiting the place of occurrence recorded statement.of PW-1, (an eye witness) under Section 154 of the Code and thus acted legally. 15. The expression FIR is not defined in the Statute. It is, however, the information first in point of time given to the police officer regarding commission of a cognizable offence which such police officer is duty bound to record by virtue of the provisions of Section 154 of the Code. 15. The expression FIR is not defined in the Statute. It is, however, the information first in point of time given to the police officer regarding commission of a cognizable offence which such police officer is duty bound to record by virtue of the provisions of Section 154 of the Code. The purpose of FIR is to set the law in motion and such information can be given by any person. However, such information should not be vague or indefinite. It is not each and every vague, indefinite or cryptic information which may be treated as the First Information Report. 16. In the case in hand, the informant (PW-4) is not the eye witness of the occurrence. As per his evidence, he was informed of the occurrence at about 7 p.m. by Bhura Ram, who himself is not the eye witness of the occurrence. On receipt of the information from Bhura Ram, PW-4 proceeded to the spot, saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the back side of his house and telephonically sent information to police station, Barmana, Police Post, Namhol and Bilaspur. It is neither in his examination in chief nor suggested in his cross examination that before conveying the information to police, he enquired about the cause of death of the deceased or details of the occurrence from any eye witness of the occurrence or conveyed all the material particulars of the crime to the police. The evidence of the investigating officer (PW-12) in this regard is that a telephonic message was received fro Ram Lal (PW-4) in the S.P. Office (Bilaspur) that Mast Ram had been murdered in village Lungri. Evidently, the message as conveyed to PW-12 is not from an eye witness. It is devoid of details, cryptic and laconic. Therefore, it could not be treated as FIR and PW-12 did not commit any illegality in recording the statement Ex. PA of PW-1 who is an eye witness of the occurrence and had given the details of the occurrence as witnessed by her. There is nothing on the record suggestive of any deliberation and consultations. 17. It may also be pointed out here that the accused had not taken the plea now sought to be raised before the trial Court. Statement Ex. There is nothing on the record suggestive of any deliberation and consultations. 17. It may also be pointed out here that the accused had not taken the plea now sought to be raised before the trial Court. Statement Ex. PA and formal FIR Ex PQ have been admitted in evidence by the trial Court without any objection having been raised for the accused, which, by itself, weaken the plea now raised in the appeal for the first time. In such a situation, non-recording of the telephonic information and not treating it as FIR will not vitiate the trial and is thus not ipso facto fatal to the case of the prosecution, fate of which now depends on the nature of evidence led at the trial. 18. The view taken hereinabove by us is supportable on the basis of the ratio in Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju and Ors. v. The State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1 ; A.W. Khan v. The State AIR 1962 Calcutta 641; and Sadre Alam Mullick v. State 1997 Cri. L.J. 2441. Ground No. 2 19. The learned Counsel for the accused had contended that from the house of PW-3, the Sehan where the quarrel initially took place is admittedly not visible, therefore, statement of PW-3 regarding the quarrel in the sehan is simply false and he is an ureliable witness. The other two eye witnesses are the widow and son of the deceased and, thus, interested witnesses. Therefore, evidence of the alleged eye witness could not be made basis for convicting the accused. 20. To appreciate the contention, it is necessary to refer to the relevant part of the case of the prosecution. As per the prosecution, a quarrel initially took place in the sehan and subsequently at the back side of the house of the deceased. It is the sehan where the first quarrel took place and, according to the defence, it is not visible from the house of PW-3, therefore, he could not see the first quarrel, hence, his statement is unreliable. It is not disputed that the sehan is not visible from the house of PW-3 but it is also not in dispute that back side of the house of the deceased is visible from the house of PW-3. It is not disputed that the sehan is not visible from the house of PW-3 but it is also not in dispute that back side of the house of the deceased is visible from the house of PW-3. The version of PW-3, when read as a whole, comes to that he was preparing tea when he heard some noise and came out to his compound and saw the initial beatings administered to the deceased whereafter the accused had run away. He ignored the occurrence being a quarrel between two brothers. While taking tea in the house he heard the noise again and again went to his compound and saw that, the accused was again giving beatings to the deceased who had fallen on the ground. It is, thus, evident that to know the cause of noise, both the times, PW-3 came out of the house to the compound. It is not the case of the accused that the places of occurrence, particularly the sehan are not visible from the compound of PW-3. When a person will hear noise, it is natural human conduct to find out the cause for it. Therefore, the act of PW-3 in coming out of his house to the compound on hearing the noise is quite natural and to know about the cause of noise, he must have gone to that part of his compound from where he could see the place from where the noise was emanating. Therefore, the statement of PW-3 cannot be disbelieved for the reason that the place of occurrence particularly the sehan is not visible from his house because he did not see the occurrence from the house itself but came out to the compound to see as to what was happening. 21. The other eye witnesses, of the occurrence are the widow (PW-1) and the son (PW-3) of the deceased. PW-1 herself is the victim as she was also beaten by the accused when she tried to rescue the deceased. The statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are not only natural, cogent and confidence inspiring, fully corroborated by an independent witness (PW-3), but are also corroborated by medical evidence. PW-1 herself is the victim as she was also beaten by the accused when she tried to rescue the deceased. The statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are not only natural, cogent and confidence inspiring, fully corroborated by an independent witness (PW-3), but are also corroborated by medical evidence. As already pointed out as many as 9 ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased and as per statement of PW-5, the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of injuries No. 8 and 9 which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. According to the opinion of PW-5, the injuries found on the person of the deceased were capable of being caused by the recovered weapon of offence, i.e. Danda Ex. P-l and injury Nos. 4 and 9 could not be caused by a fall or in a scuffle. The medical evidence suggests that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were caused with blows given by a blunt weapon like Danda Ex. P-1 and thus, supports the version of PW-1 to PW-3 regarding the cause of injuries sustained by the deceased. As per PW-6, at the time of medical examination of PW-1 multiple small abrasions and puncurted wound were found on her left wrist and small glass pieces probably of bangles could be seen inside the wounds and these injuries could also be caused with danda Ex. P-1. Thus, the medical evidence lends credence to the version of PW-1 that when she tried to rescue her husband, accused gave danda blows on her left arm and wrist. Even the accused, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code, has admitted at least grappling with the deceased and following him to the back side of the house after the initial physical fight was over and the deceased had run away to the back side of his house. These admissions of the accused also lend credence to the above discussed evidence of the prosecution. 22. hi view of the reliability and trustworthiness of the evidence discussed hereinabove, there is no escape from the conclusion that accused is the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased which caused his death and he has also caused simple injuries to PW-1 with a blunt weapon. Therefore, the contention to the contrary raised for the accused is unsustainable. hi view of the reliability and trustworthiness of the evidence discussed hereinabove, there is no escape from the conclusion that accused is the author of the injuries sustained by the deceased which caused his death and he has also caused simple injuries to PW-1 with a blunt weapon. Therefore, the contention to the contrary raised for the accused is unsustainable. Ground No. 3 23. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that as per MLC Ex. PR and statement of PW-11, as many as four injuries were found on the person of the deceased which have not been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that genesis of the occurrence has been concealed and as a result, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 24. The prosecution has not attempted to conceal the injuries found on the person of the accused. On the contrary, it led evidence regarding such injuries having been found on the person of the accused. It is admitted case of the accused as is the case of the prosecution, that at the first instance a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased in the sehan. As per the accused, it was a physical fight i.e. grappling. According to the statement of PW-11, read with MLC Ex. PR, the injuries sustained by the accused are simple and superficial, capable of being caused by a danda or in a scuffle. It is not the case of the accused that he sustained the injuries at the time of second quarrel at the back of the house of the deceased. Thus, the injuries sustained by the accused are evidently the result of the grappling which initially took place between him and the deceased. Thus, the finding of superficial injuries on the person of the accused are duly explained and do not damage the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the contention for the accused that for want of explaining the injuries on the person of the accused, the inference that genesis of the occurrence has been concealed, can also not be sustained. Ground No. 4 25. Therefore, the contention for the accused that for want of explaining the injuries on the person of the accused, the inference that genesis of the occurrence has been concealed, can also not be sustained. Ground No. 4 25. It was strongly contended by the learned Counsel for the ac cused that the goat of the accused strayed into the cowshed of the deceased which led to a sudden fight and provocation to the accused and what happened thereafter was a result of provocation and self defence, therefore, the accused could, at the most, be held guilty of the commission of an offence under Section 325 or 304 (Part II) IPC and his conviction under Section 302 IPC is bad in law. To substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel relied on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnaya and Anr. AIR 1977 SC 45; Bhera v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 10 SCC 225; K. Ramakrishanan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 309; Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab 1987 (Supp) SC 600; Khanjan Pal v. State of U.P. (1990) 4 SCC 53; Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342; Chand and Ors. v. The State of U.P. 1972 Cri. L.J. 590; Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1968 SC 867; Amrithalinga Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1976 SC 1133; and Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2002 SC 3462. 26. There is no dispute with the ratio of these cases as laid in the facts and circumstances of the respective case. Broadly speaking, the ratio in these cases is that when in view of the facts and circumstances a case falls under an exception to Section 300 IPC and the requisite intention or knowledge contemplated under Section 300 IPC cannot be gathered, it will not be an offence under Section 302 IPC but culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 IPC. In a case where even the ingredients of Section 304 IPC are not satisfied, despite death having occurred because of the injuries caused to the victim, the offence may be one under lessor punitive sections of the species i.e. Sections 326, 325 etc. In a case where even the ingredients of Section 304 IPC are not satisfied, despite death having occurred because of the injuries caused to the victim, the offence may be one under lessor punitive sections of the species i.e. Sections 326, 325 etc. The accused, however, can take advantage of the cited case law or Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC as is urged, only if it can be gathered from the material on records that (i) it was a sudden fight, (ii) there was no premeditation, (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv) the accused had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. 27. In Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujrat JT 2003 (6) SC 189, the Honble Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC held as under : 10. For bringing in its operation it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 11. The Fourth Exception of Section 300, IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception I there is total deprivation of self control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds mens sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1 but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A sudden fight implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. A sudden fight implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the fight occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression undue advantage as used in the provision means unfair advantage. It is in view of the above settled position in law that the contention raised for the accused requires examination. 28. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression undue advantage as used in the provision means unfair advantage. It is in view of the above settled position in law that the contention raised for the accused requires examination. 28. It is not in dispute that a goat of the accused strayed into the cowshed of the deceased. According to the prosecution case as unfolded by PW-1 and PW-2, the deceased objected about the goat straying into his cowshed and the accused started beating the deceased with fist and kick blows and thereafter ran away. This occurrence took place in the sehan. The accused also admits that because of his goat entering the cowshed of the deceased, a physical fight between him and the deceased took place. The cause for the fight thus was not taking proper care of his goat by the accused and the deceased had a right to object to the entry of the goat of the accused into his cowshed. Entering into a physical fight by the accused thus was an act of aggression by a person at fault. It is further case of the prosecution that after this initial beatings, the accused had run away and the deceased also went to the back side of his house to call his wife and son back to the house. Accused had also admitted clearly and unambiguously in his statement under Section 313 of the Code that after the initial occurrence the deceased had run away to the back side of his house and thereafter he also went towards the back side of the house of the deceased. It is implicit in the conduct of the deceased running away from the place of initial quarrel, his calling PW-1 and PW-2 to help him and the accused following him that in the physical fight the deceased was at the receiving end. 29. According to the prosecution, the accused caused the fatal injuries to the deceased with a danda on the back side of the house of the deceased, the place to which accused followed the deceased, who was narrating the ordeal met out to him to PW-1. This version is fully supported by PW-1, PW-2 and partly by PW-3 and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. This version is fully supported by PW-1, PW-2 and partly by PW-3 and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Accused himself admits that after initial fight the deceased had left the sehan and run away to the back side of his house and thereafter he followed him. Thus, the accused in fact chased the vanquished deceased who had called PW-1 and PW-2 to the house evidently with a view to help him. The version of prosecution, admitted even by the accused, that when the accused reached at the back side of the house, the deceased tried to run away from there also, is indicative of the fact that the accused was determined to do away with the life of the deceased who was running away to save himself from the accused. The later part of the occurrence, that is, giving fatal blows to the deceased was not a sudden fight but the chasing accused not only caused such injuries with premeditation taking undue advantage of the helplessness of the vanquished deceased who had been running away from the accused but was also an act evidently committed by the accused in a cruel manner. Therefore, the act of the accused causing death of the deceased does not fall within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The accused, thus has rightly been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and the impugned conviction and sentence do not call for any interference. 30. As a result, this appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.