JUDGMENT : K. Surender, J. 1. Crl.A.No.1029 of 2017 is preferred by the appellant, questioning his conviction for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Crl.A.No.1460 of 2017 is preferred by the State with a prayer to direct that the appellant shall not be released on parole till his natural death, since he is a rowdy sheeter and a menace to the Society. 2. Since both the Appeals arise out of common judgment in S.C.No.506 of 2012, both are heard together and disposed off by way of this common judgment. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.P.No. 1029 of 2017 and respondent in Crl.P.No.1460 of 2017, and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 4. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2012, at about 7 p.m., P.W.10 purchased pakodi from P.W.9, who is running a hotel, but P.W.10 did not make the payment, even though P.W.9 insisted. Then, P.W.8 also insisted him to make the payment. Thereafter, an altercation took place between P.W.10 and P.W.8. Since P.W.10 was threatened, he called the appellant over phone. Appellant came there and beat P.W.4, who had joined P.W.8 and questioned P.W.10 for altercating with P.W.8. Appellant also beat P.W.8, thereafter, P.W.4 called Jelloji Raju and Jelloji Naresh (deceased) over phone. P.W.4 along with the deceased went to Kisan Nagar locality and caught hold of the appellant. While they were trying to take the appellant to the Police Station, the appellant took out a knife, which was concealed under the seat of his motorcycle, and stabbed Raju, Naresh, Janagama Kamal, Bachu Shashi Kiran, Kola Srinivas/P.W.4 and Pasula Vijay/P.W.5. Jelloji Naresh (D.1) died on the spot and Jelloji Raju (D.2) died on the way to hospital, and others were taken to the hospital. While undergoing treatment, Janagama Kamal (D.3) died on 09.03.2012, and Shashi Kiran (D.4) died on 01.04.2012. 5. On receiving the information about D.1 and D.2, P.W.1, who is their mother, along with her brother-in-law, Jelloji Thirupati/P.W.2, lodged a complaint with the Police on 09.03.2012, at about 3:00 a.m. The Police took up investigation, conducted inquest over the dead bodies and obtained post mortem examination report. On 16.03.2012, the appellant was arrested at railway station, Karimnagar. Knife/M.O.15 and motorcycle/M.O.16 were seized at his instance and accordingly, charge sheet was filed, after concluding investigation. 6. On 16.03.2012, the appellant was arrested at railway station, Karimnagar. Knife/M.O.15 and motorcycle/M.O.16 were seized at his instance and accordingly, charge sheet was filed, after concluding investigation. 6. P.Ws.4, 5, 6, and 7 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Apart from the 4 deceased persons, P.Ws.4 and 5 were also attacked by the appellant and they received injuries. P.Ws.4 and 5 were treated by P.W.21/Dr.T.Vidyasagar. 7. P.W.4/Srinivas was operated and discharged on 18.03.2012. He received a penetrating injury with jekunal perforation and mesenteric tear into assault, which is grievous in nature. Ex.P.16 is the medico legal certificate issued by P.W.21. 8. P.W.5/Parsula Vijay was discharged on 11.03.2012. He received a stab injury over the right thigh 5 x 4 cms, which is grievous in nature. Ex.P.17 is the medico legal certificate issued by P.W.21 8. According to P.W.21, he examined and performed operation of D.3, namely Kamal, who received the following injuries:- “1. Stab injury in the abdomen in the left flank. 2. Left side of the chest inframmary region. 3. Left supra scapula area. 4. Massive haemothorax. P.W.21 stated that “since condition of D.3/Kamal was serious, he was operated and left supra scapula wound entering into left effects of plural cavity, 900 ml of blood was drained out. Operation was performed and he was put on ventilator with atrophic support. He died on 10.03.2012. Ex.P.15 is the death certificate issued.” 9. P.W.21 also treated D.4, namely Shashi Kiran. He was discharged after treatment on 16.03.2012. He received the following injuries: “1. Stab injury right side of the abdomen 6 x 3 x 4 cms with retroperitoneal and ascending colon haemotoma. 2. Exploratory laporotomy conducted on 09.03.2012 at 3 a.m. 3. Large retroperitoneal haemotoma was found through out the lateral wall of ascending colon. 4. Haemotoma of mesentery nearly 500 ml blood was seen peritoneal cavity. 5. Intraop blood loss nearly 1.5 ltrs.” Since condition of D.4 was serious, he was shifted to Hyderabad for further treatment. Ex.P19 is the case sheet. However, while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, D.4 died on 01.04.2012. 10. D.2, namely Jelloji Raju, who died instantaneously, received the following injuries: “1. Incised injury over the right abdomen measuring 2 x 2 cm. 2. Small intestine about 10 cms outside body. 3. Inside abdomen huge amount of blood collected. 4. Skull-N.A.D. 5. Ex.P19 is the case sheet. However, while undergoing treatment in Gandhi Hospital, D.4 died on 01.04.2012. 10. D.2, namely Jelloji Raju, who died instantaneously, received the following injuries: “1. Incised injury over the right abdomen measuring 2 x 2 cm. 2. Small intestine about 10 cms outside body. 3. Inside abdomen huge amount of blood collected. 4. Skull-N.A.D. 5. Brain-Congested.” The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to shock, haemorrhage, and trauma. Approximate time of death was 11 to 22 hours prior to examination. Ex.P.20 is the post mortem examination report dt.09.03.2012. 11. D.1, namely Jelloji Naresh, received the following injuries: “1. Incised injury over the left lateral below chin measuring 3 x 2 inches. 2. Incised injury left lower part of abdomen measuring 2 x 3 inches. 3. Rupture of the descending colon. 4. Huge blood is present in abdomen cavity. 5. Skull-N.A.D. 6. Brain-Congested.” The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to shock, haemorrhage, and poly trauma. The approximate time of death was 11 to 22 hours prior to examination. Ex.P.21 is the port mortem examination report, dt.09.03.2012. The Doctor opined that the injuries received by both D.1 and D.2, are possible by knife/M.O.15. 12. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for murdering four persons, considering the evidence of eye witnesses and injured, who are P.Ws.4, 5, 6, and 7. 13. The argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant is two folds: 1. The identity of the appellant was not established by way of Test Identification Parade, as such, the question of conviction does not arise. 2. The incident happened at the spur of the moment. From the events, it can be gathered that the appellant had neither any intention, nor premeditation to cause the death of the deceased. In the absence of both, intention and premeditation, the offence would squarely fall within 304-I IPC or 304-II of IPC and not Section 302 of IPC. 14. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- 1. Ajmal vs. State of Kerala , [ 2022(9) SCC 766 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, conviction of the appellants would be under Section 304-II of IPC as there is no premeditation to commit murder. In the incident of assault in this case, there was one death and three were injured. 2. Ajmal vs. State of Kerala , [ 2022(9) SCC 766 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, conviction of the appellants would be under Section 304-II of IPC as there is no premeditation to commit murder. In the incident of assault in this case, there was one death and three were injured. 2. Govind Singh vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2019 (17) SCC 812 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, since the occurrence of the incident was sudden, and there was no premeditation, the act of the accused would fall under exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. 3. Atul Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , [ 2018 (2) SCC 496 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, the evidence on record established that a sudden fight took place between the appellant and the deceased. There was no evidence to show that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. 4. Sandhaya Jadhav vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (4) SCC 653 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, Fourth exception to Section 300 of IPC covers the acts done in a sudden fight. In a fight that suddenly takes place, both the parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them started it, but if the other had not aggravated the fight by his own conduct, situation may not have taken a serious turn as it did. 15. The incident, as witnessed by P.Ws.4 and 5, happened twice. In the first instance, the altercation took place in between witnesses, P.W.4,P.W.5, and the appellant. In the second instance, since there was a galata, after P.Ws.4 and 5 called the deceased over phone. The deceased persons, along with P.Ws.4 and 5, questioned the appellant, and the appellant beat P.Ws.4 and 5. It is also the case of P.Ws.4 and 5 that the appellant was being taken in an auto to Kisan Nagar, near Subhash Nagar. D.1 to D.4 caught hold of the appellant and it was decided that the appellant should be taken to the Police Station. When the deceased started questioning the appellant about the incident of altercation with P.Ws.4 and 5, then the appellant picked up a knife and started stabbing them in a frenzy. D.1 to D.4 caught hold of the appellant and it was decided that the appellant should be taken to the Police Station. When the deceased started questioning the appellant about the incident of altercation with P.Ws.4 and 5, then the appellant picked up a knife and started stabbing them in a frenzy. He stabbed all four deceased, and also attacked P.Ws.4 and 5 with a knife. As already stated, four persons died and P.Ws.4 and 5 got injured. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that, at the first instance, when the altercation had taken place, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause any injury or harm to any of the witnesses or the deceased. In fact, the appellant was forced into an auto. As such, the appellant apprehended danger at the hands of the deceased and others and then he had acted in a manner to save himself from them. 17. The incident lasted for nearly 15 minutes. The appellant was in a frenzy and started stabbing 6 persons indiscriminately. Two persons died on the spot. Two persons were shifted to hospital. Third person died after being taken to the hospital. Fourth person died nearly 21 days after the incident. The appellant neither pleaded insanity, nor temporary insanity. 18. In an incident, premeditation or intent can be gathered from the facts of that particular case. The exception 4 under Section 300 of IPC can be invoked when there is an incident of culpable homicide without any premeditation and in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. However, Exception 4 of 300 of IPC cannot be applied if the offender is found to have taken undue advantage, or acted in a cruel or an unusual manner. 19. Even assuming for a moment that there was a quarrel, and the appellant had attacked four deceased and P.Ws.4 and 5 to save himself, however, the manner in which four persons were stabbed continuously, inflicting several injuries on each of them, would clearly reflect the unusual and cruel manner in which the appellant acted on the date of incident. The manner in which the incident had taken place would only go to show that the appellant had knowledge of his acts, that his acts would result in the death of the persons whom he attacked. The manner in which the incident had taken place would only go to show that the appellant had knowledge of his acts, that his acts would result in the death of the persons whom he attacked. The intention to cause death can also arise in certain cases when an attack takes place. Such intention can be gathered from the manner in which the person had attacked and injured other persons. Since the appellant had continuously attacked 6 persons in the very same incident, it cannot be said that the appellant had no intention, or premeditation in committing the murders of the deceased, D.1 to D.4, or intention to cause death of P.Ws.4 and 5. 20. It is not the case of the appellant that either he was temporarily insane, or he was in any manner, attacked by the deceased or by the witnesses, when the incident happened. The appellant did not receive any injury during the incident. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the act of the appellant falls within exception 4 of 300 of IPC. 21. There were two altercations. At the time of second altercation, while the appellant was being taken to the hospital, the appellant indiscriminately attacked the deceased and P.W.4 and P.W.5, altogether six persons. The question of the witnesses not being able to identify the assailant in such circumstances, does not arise. The incident was gruesome and went on for a considerable time, so as to leave an indelible impression in the minds of the witnesses. The argument that the accused could not be identified, cannot be accepted. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. 22. Accordingly, Crl.A.No. 1029 of 2017 filed by the appellant is dismissed . Since, the appellant is on bail, the trial Court shall cause his appearance and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposed. 23. Insofar as Crl.A.No.1460 of 2017 filed by the State is concerned, it is informed that the appellant was released on bail. Till date, no report is filed to show that he has misused the liberty given to him. There is no report from Jail Superintendent to assess the conduct of the appellant, to show that he is a threat or danger to the Society, as claimed by the prosecution. Till date, no report is filed to show that he has misused the liberty given to him. There is no report from Jail Superintendent to assess the conduct of the appellant, to show that he is a threat or danger to the Society, as claimed by the prosecution. Accordingly, the Crl.A.No.1460 of 2017 filed by the State is dismissed.