Surender Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

2025 INSC 1412 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. /2025 (@SLP (Crl) No. 5532/2025)

SURENDER KUMAR Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have perused the materials available on record.

3. The appellant is convicted under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). The impugned

order of the High Court affirms his conviction under

Section 302 IPC.

4. In this appeal a limited notice was issued on

24.03.2025 to consider whether the appellant could be

convicted for an offence lesser than one punishable

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(IPC).

5. Autopsy report reflects that the deceased was

inflicted with four knife blows on vital parts of his

Signature Not Verified body. Common carotid and subclavian arteries were Digitally signed by

found cut. Thus, in our view, injuries found on the KAVITA PAHUJA Date: 2025.12.10 16:54:31 IST Reason:

body of the deceased in ordinary course would have

1 resulted in death. No defense evidence was led; and

the statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was one

of denial. Further, there was no statement that the

deceased had attacked the appellant or caused any

injury or harm to the appellant. In that context, we

would examine whether benefit of any one of the four

Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC would be available

to the petitioner or not.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the evidence indicated that the deceased was addicted

to drugs and loud shouts were heard before the

occurrence. Based on that, he submits, the incident

was preceded by altercation/ quarrel and, therefore,

it occurred in such a manner that it may fall either

under Exception 2 i.e., exceeding self-defense or

under Exception 4 i.e., without pre-meditation in a

sudden fight in the heat of passion. He also

submitted that the accused had suffered injury.

7. In our view, the act in question would not fall under

Exception 2 because, firstly, there is no evidence to

show that the accused or his property was attacked by

the deceased. Even in his statement under Section 313

CrPC no plea of self-defense or of deceased causing

any injury to the appellant was raised. Besides, no

defense evidence was led. Further, it is not shown

2 that the deceased was armed. In such circumstances,

in our view, benefit of Exception 2 would not be

available to the petitioner.

8. As far as Exception 4 is concerned, an act of

culpable homicide does not amount to murder if

following ingredients are fulfilled (i) there is no

pre-meditation; (ii) there is a sudden fight; (iii)

the act is committed in the heat of passion; and (iv)

the assailant has not taken any undue advantage or

acted in a cruel manner. Although the term ‘fight’

has not been defined in IPC, but the consistent view

is that it implies mutual assault by use of criminal

force and not mere verbal duel.

9. In Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra,

(1978) 3 SCC 330 (para 6), followed and affirmed in

Awadhesh Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2019) 10 SCC

323, this Court held that where the accused is armed

and the deceased is unarmed, Exception 2 can have no

application and Exception 4 to Section 300 would not

apply if there is sudden quarrel but no fight between

the deceased and the accused. It was held that

‘fight’ postulates a bilateral transaction in which

blows are exchanged.

10. In the instant case, there is no evidence of exchange

of blows. In our view, therefore, case would not fall

under Exception 4 to Section 300. Moreover,

3 infliction of 4 knife blows to an unarmed person, on

vital parts of the body, is indicative of the accused

acting in a cruel manner.

11. At last, the appellant’s counsel argued that case may

fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 because

infliction of knife blows took place after a quarrel.

In our view, there is not much evidence on record to

disclose that provocation was so grave and sudden

that the appellant was deprived of his self-control.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any

mitigating circumstances on basis whereof we may

reduce the sentence by altering the conviction of the

appellant for an offence lesser than one punishable

under Section 302 IPC.

13. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

14. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

……………………………………………………………………..J [MANOJ MISRA]

……………………………………………………………………..J [UJJAL BHUYAN]

New Delhi;

December 09, 2025.

4 ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 5532/2025

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-05-2024 in CRA No. 263/2021 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla]

SURENDER KUMAR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondent(s)

Date : 09-12-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ajay Marwah, AOR Mr. Swaroopanand Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Mrigank Bhardwaj, Adv.

Ms. Dhriti Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Rahulkumar, Adv.

Mr. Rajiv Sethi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the reportable

signed order which is placed on the file.

3. All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

(KAVITA PAHUJA) (SAPNA BANSAL) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

5