No Exception to Murder Charge Where Multiple Knife Blows Severed Vital Arteries, Supreme Court Upholds Conviction

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the special leave petition filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and examined whether the offence could be reduced to a lesser form of culpable homicide by invoking any of the Exceptions to Section 300 IPC.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC, holding that no mitigating exception to murder was attracted on the facts. The judges recorded that the autopsy showed the deceased received four knife blows to vital parts and that the "common carotid and subclavian arteries were found cut," concluding that the injuries "in ordinary course would have resulted in death." The Court noted there was no defence evidence and the appellant’s Section 313 CrPC answer was a denial; there was no plea that the deceased attacked the appellant or caused him injury. The Court rejected reliance on Exception 2 (self-defence), finding "no evidence to show that the accused or his property was attacked by the deceased," and held Exception 4 (sudden fight) inapplicable because there was no evidence of an exchange of blows and the injuries indicated cruelty. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court added that "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."

Background: The prosecution case rested on medical and circumstantial evidence that the deceased sustained four stab injuries to vital anatomical regions, with severance of major arteries on post-mortem. The appellant led no defence witnesses and offered only a denial under Section 313 CrPC. Defence counsel argued that the incident followed a quarrel involving a drug-addicted deceased and loud shouting, and submitted the circumstances could attract Exception 2 (exceeding self-defence) or Exception 4 (sudden fight), or alternatively Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation). The High Court had affirmed the conviction under Section 302, and the appeal to this Court raised the limited question whether conviction could be reduced to a lesser offence.

The Supreme Court reviewed precedent, including Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra and Awadhesh Kumar v. State of U.P., and applied the settled legal tests for Exceptions to Section 300. It found no proof of mutual combat or of the deceased being armed, no plea or evidence of the deceased attacking the appellant, and insufficient material to show provocation deprived the appellant of self-control. Given the medical findings and absence of mitigating circumstances, the Court found no basis to alter the conviction or sentence. The appeal was dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 5532/2025 Case Title: Surender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh Appearances: For the 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 the Respondent(s): Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR.