While applying this principle, the primary obligation of the court is to examine from the point of view of a person of reasonable prudence if there was such grave and sudden provocation so as to reasonably conclude that it was possible to commit the offence of culpable homicide, and as per the facts, was not a culpable homicide amounting to murder. An offence resulting from grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that a person placed in such circumstances could lose selfcontrol but only temporarily and that too, in proximity to the time of provocation. The provocation could be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting injury. Another test that is applied more often than not is that the behaviour of the assailant was that of a reasonable person. A fine distinction has to be kept in mind between sudden and grave provocation resulting in sudden and temporary loss of selfcontrol and the one which inspires an actual intention to kill. Such an act should have been done during the continuation of the state of mind and the time for such a person to kill and reasons to regain the dominion over the mind. Once there is a premeditated act with the intention to kill, it will obviously fall beyond the scope of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The act must be committed
(1) without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion;
(2) upon a sudden quarrel;
(3) without the offender having taken undue advantage (The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provision means “unfair advantage);
(4) and the accused had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner;
(5) 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 IPC. A fight is a confrontation 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.
Therefore, there must be mutual combat or exchanging blows with each other. And however slight the first blow, or provocation, every fresh blow becomes a fresh provocation. The blood is already heated or warms up at every subsequent stroke. The voice of reason is heard on neither side in the heat of passion. Therefore, it is difficult to apportion between them respective degrees of blame with reference to the state of things at the commencement of the fray but it must occur as a consequence of a sudden fight i.e. mutual combat. It matters not what the cause of the quarrel is, whether real or imaginary, or who draws or strikes first. The strike of the blow must be without any intention to kill or seriously injure the other. If two men start fighting and one of them is unarmed while the other uses a deadly weapon, the one who uses such a weapon must be held to have taken an undue advantage denying him the entitlement to Exception 4 of the IPC.
Exception 4 of the 300 of the IPC corresponds directly to Exception 4 of Section 101 of the BNS.
Exception 4 – 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.
True the number of wounds is not the criterion, but the position of the accused and the deceased with regard to their arms used, the manner of combat must be kept in mind when applying Exception 4 of the Section 300 of the IPC. When the deceased was not armed but the accused was and caused injuries to the deceased with fatal results, the Exception 4 engrafted to Section 300 is excepted and the offences committed would be one of murder. The occasion for sudden quarrel must not only be sudden but the party assaulted must be on an equal footing in point of defence, at least at the onset. This is especially so where the attack is made with dangerous weapons. Where the deceased was unarmed and did not cause any injury to the accused even following a sudden quarrel if the accused has inflicted fatal blows on the deceased, Exception 4 is not attracted and commission must be one of murder punishable under Section 302. Equally for attracting Exception 4 it is necessary that blows should be exchanged even if they do not all find their target. Even if the fight is unpremeditated and sudden, yet if the instrument or manner of retaliation is greatly disproportionate to the offence given, and cruel and dangerous in its nature, the accused cannot be protected under Exception 4.
Related Article :
Chapter XVI (Section – 304) of The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860