The Supreme Court has observed that when the accused party came armed at the scene of crime, it clearly indicates that the occurrence did not take place in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel to claim the exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

In this appeal [Guru @ Gurubaran vs. State], the contention of the accused convicted for murder was that the offence was not of murder but may amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that the case would fall within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

Exception 4 provides that, if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

The bench comprising Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Aniruddha Bose noted that it has come in evidence that all the accused persons came armed. Two were armed with sickles, one with an iron pipe and the other with wooden staffs, it noted.

Holding that the accused cannot take benefit of this Exception, the bench observed:

Even if it is assumed that they may not have come with the intention of killing, the fact that they were armed, clearly indicates that the occurrence did not take place in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel. As pointed out above, both sides were coming to attend a Panchayat to settle a dispute. Where was the need to carry arms if the intention was only to settle a dispute?

Click here to Read/Download Judgment