MARIAPPAN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 1074, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 1074 : 2023 INSC 1034
1074
CASE DETAILS
MARIAPPAN
v.
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 3598 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 24, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: On the day of incident, heated arguments 
took place between the two parties. During the quarrel, accused nos.1 and 
2 stabbed victim multiple times with sooriknives, while accused no.3, 
though armed with a spade handle, did not inﬂ ict injuries but facilitated in 
the attack. The appellant-accused was convicted u/s. 302 IPC. Whether the 
acts of the accused would come under Exception 4 to s.300 IPC or would 
be an act of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s.304 Part-I – Trial Court after 
examining witnesses and material evidence, convicted appellant-
accused no.1 u/s. 302 IPC and acquitted accused nos. 2 and 3 from all 
charges levelled against them – The High Court conﬁ rmed the order 
of conviction u/s. 302 of the IPC – Propriety:
Held: Right from the beginning i.e. the prosecution story as set up 
in the FIR was that initially there was a heated discussion between the 
parties and in a ﬁ t of anger the physical assault took place – Even the ocular 
testimony is also to the same eﬀ ect – Although on the same evidence the 
Trial Court has acquitted two co-accused and convicted only the appellant 
– It has also come in evidence that the appellant had caused only one injury 
whereas other
accused had caused multiple injuries – However, the Trial 
Court acquitted the other two accused – The previous enmity between the 
appellant and the deceased had been a contributory factor leading to the 
verbal altercation but it was not the reason for the accused to carry out a 
pre-planned fatal attack against the deceased – The appellant had acted 
“suddenly”, in the heat of passion and without a pre-planned approach to 
kill the deceased – Hence, it can be safely concluded from the evidence
1075
led in the present case that the appellant’s overt act of killing the deceased 
happened during a ﬁ t of anger in the heat of a passionate verbal quarrel and 
would fall under Exception 4 to s.300 IPC – The conviction u/s. 302 IPC is 
converted to s. 304 Part-I IPC. [Paras 11, 12 and 13]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Rampal Singh v. State of U.P, (2012) 8 SCC 289 : [2012] 7 SCR 160; 
Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217 : [1989] 
1 SCR 941 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.3598 
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2016 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in CRLA No.151 of 2013. 
Appearances:
T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Subham Kothari, Ms. Preethi, G, 
Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Advs. for the 
Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. This appeal assails the correctness of the ﬁ nal Judgment and Order 
dated 22.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in 
Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 whereby the High Court has dismissed the 
appeal of the present appellant and conﬁ rmed the order of conviction under 
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and awarding life sentence 
passed on 05.10.2012 by the Trial Court.
1 
IPC
MARIAPPAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
1076 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
2.1 The case involves the oﬀ ence of culpable homicide committed by 
the present appellant. The present appellant was accused no.1 before the Trial 
Court in S.C.No.177 of 2010 on the ﬁ le of the learned IV Additional District 
& Session Judge, Erode District, at Bhavani. While the other two accused, 
i.e., accused nos.2 and 3 were acquitted of all charges by the Trial Court. 
2.2 The case involves the murder of one Kolandaippam, wherein the 
core motive was identiﬁ ed as a longstanding enmity over a land dispute 
between the deceased and the three accused. Prior to the incident, there were 
several confrontations and threats, notably 3½ years earlier on the disputed 
land, and a subsequent altercation involving the deceased’s wife and Pappa, 
the sister of the ﬁ rst accused. These events, including a police-compromised 
complaint by the deceased’s wife, intensiﬁ ed the hostility.
2.3 On 17th March 2009, around 6:00 p.m., at Koil Kaadu Chithanattu 
Salai in Neringipettai Village, the deceased, along with P.Ws.2, 3, and 5, 
was confronted by the accused. Heated arguments took place between the 
two parties. During the quarrel, accused nos.1 and 2 stabbed Kolandaippam 
multiple times with soori-knives, while accused no.3, though armed with 
a spade handle, did not inﬂ ict injuries but facilitated in the attack. P.W.1, 
the daughter of the deceased, witnessed this event. Following
the attack, 
the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital at Bhavani, where 
Dr. (Mrs.) Janatha pronounced him dead and a complaint was lodged at 
the Ammapettai Police Station, leading to the registration of a case under 
Sections 302 and 324 of IPC.
2.4 The investigation, led initially by Subbiah (P.W.13) and later 
by A. Rajendran (P.W.14), involved meticulous collection of evidence. 
This included bloodstained earth from the crime scene, preparation of an 
Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch, and the recovery of the murder 
weapons. The autopsy conducted by Dr. Poornachandrika (P.W.8) revealed 
multiple stab wounds as the cause of death, particularly noting a fatal injury 
to the heart.
2.5 Signiﬁ cant evidence contributing to the appellant’s guilt includes 
the recovery of the murder weapon (a soori-knife) and bloodstained clothes 
following his voluntary confession. Additionally, the testimonies of the
1077
eyewitnesses, especially P.W.1, and the forensic evidence linking the blood 
group from the material objects to the deceased, played a crucial role. Despite 
some inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts, the overwhelming evidence 
pointed towards the accused no.1’s direct involvement in the assault.
2.6 Upon ﬁ ling of charge sheet by the respondent police, a session case 
was registered before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavani in S.C.No.177 
of2010. The Trial Court taking cognizance of the oﬀ ence, framed two 
charges. Charge against the accused Nos.1 to 3 was under Section 302 read 
with Section 34 IPC. Charge was against the accused no.3 under Section 
307 IPC.
2.7 The trial involved the examination of 14 witnesses, and the 
presentation of 18 documents and 9 material objects. While the accused 
nos.2 and 3 were acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence against them, 
the accused no.1, i.e., the appellant herein was found guilty based on the 
weight of the testimonies and other documentary and material evidence. 
According to the Trial Court there was compelling evidence, particularly 
the recovery of the murder weapon and the consistency of the eyewitness 
testimonies, which duly proved the conviction of the appellant.
3. As already narrated earlier, by judgment dated 05.10.2012, the Trial 
Court convicted the accused no.1, i.e., the appellant herein under Section 
302 IPC and acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 from all the charges levelled 
against them. The
appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life 
and to pay a ﬁ ne of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment 
for one year for the said oﬀ ence.
4. The appellant ﬁ led Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 before the High 
Court at Madras. Vide order dt. 22.04.2016, the High Court upheld the Trial 
Court’s order and dismissed the appeal of the appellant concluding that the 
act of the appellant would squarely fall within the third limb of Section 300 
IPC and the same would not fall under any of the Exception to Section 300 
IPC and hence he is liable to be punished under Section 302 of IPC. 
5. The appellant has ﬁ led the present appeal against the aforementioned 
order of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2013 praying to set 
aside the order of conviction on several grounds, inter alia, that the Trial 
Court held that accused no.1, all of a sudden, while the wordy quarrel 
MARIAPPAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[VIKRAM NATH, J.]
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
was going on, had stabbed the deceased in front of his daughter, son, his 
relatives and hence his act should come under Exception 4 to Section 300 
IPC and would be guilty of Section 304 part 1 IPC and should be sentenced 
accordingly.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State 
supported the judgments and orders passed by the Trial Court and the High 
Court, opposing the arguments of the appellant.
7. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, we ﬁ nd that the 
evidence presented before the Trial Court and the facts and circumstances of 
the case clearly establish beyond reasonable doubt that the wound caused by 
the appellant was the reason for the death of the deceased. The High Court 
also reaﬃ  rmed this observation that the injuries with soori-knife caused by 
the appellant were the reason for the death of the deceased.
8. Hence the only question that remains for consideration before us is 
whether the act of the accused is culpable homicide amounting to murder 
or not. In other words, the question is whether the acts of the accused would 
come under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC or would be an act of culpable 
homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302.
9. This Court in Rampal Singh v. State of U.P.2, while altering the 
oﬀ ence under Section 302 to Section 304 Part 1 of IPC, has elaborately 
discussed the distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder 
and culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. What is held is that 
classiﬁ cation would be a matter of fact depending upon the evidence led in 
the trial. Broadly speaking, the factors to be considered are enumerated in 
paragraph 25 thereof. The same is been reproduced below:
“25. As we have already discussed, classiﬁ cation of an oﬀ ence into 
either part of Section 304 is primarily a matter of fact. This would have 
to be decided with reference to the nature of the oﬀ ence, intention of the 
oﬀ ender, weapon used, the place and nature of the injuries, existence of 
premeditated mind, the persons participating in the commission of the 
crime and to some extent the motive for commission of the crime. The 
evidence led by the parties with reference to all these circumstances 
2 
(2012) 8 SCC 289
1079
greatly helps the court in coming to a ﬁ nal conclusion as to under 
which penal provision of the Code the accused is liable to be punished. 
This can also be decided from another point of view i.e. by applying 
the “principle of exclusion”. This principle could be applied while 
taking recourse to a two-stage process of determination. Firstly, the 
Court may record a preliminary ﬁ nding if the accused had committed 
an oﬀ ence punishable under the substantive provisions of Section 
302 of the Code, that is, “culpable homicide amounting to murder”. 
Then secondly, it may proceed to examine if the case fell in any of the 
Exceptions detailed in Section 300 of the Code. This would doubly 
ensure that the conclusion arrived at by the court is correct on facts 
and sustainable in law. We are stating such a proposition to indicate 
that such a determination would better serve the ends of criminal 
justice delivery. This is more so because presumption of innocence 
and right to fair trial are the essence of our criminal jurisprudence and 
are accepted as rights of the accused.”
10. It would also be apt here to refer to the judgement of Surinder 
Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh3, wherein this Court had laid 
down the grounds to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC:
“7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisﬁ ed, 
namely, (i) it was a sudden ﬁ ght; (ii) there was no premeditation; 
(iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant 
had
not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The 
cause of the quarrel is not relevant no is it relevant who oﬀ ered the 
provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused 
during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important 
is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated 
and the oﬀ ender must have acted in a ﬁ t of anger. Of course, the 
oﬀ ender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a 
cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of 
the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, 
one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the beneﬁ t of this 
exception provided he has not acted cruelly.”
3 
(1989) 2 SCC 217
MARIAPPAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[VIKRAM NATH, J.]
1080 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
11. In the present case, while looking at the facts and circumstances of 
the case, it can be seen that the appellant had suddenly stabbed the deceased 
during a heated verbal argument with him and not during a pre-planned 
attack which was carried out with the sole intention of causing the death of 
the deceased. The previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased 
had been a contributory factor leading to the verbal altercation but it was 
not the reason for the accused to carry out a pre-planned fatal attack against 
the deceased. The appellant had acted “suddenly”, in the heat of passion 
and without a pre-planned approach to kill the deceased. 
12. Right from the beginning i.e. he prosecution story as set up in the 
FIR was that initially there was a heated discussion between the parties and 
in a ﬁ t of anger the physical assault took place. Even the ocular testimony 
is also to the same eﬀ ect. Although on the same evidence the Trial Court 
has acquitted two co-accused and convicted only the appellant. It has also 
come in evidence that the appellant had caused only one injury whereas other 
accused had caused multiple injuries. However, the Trial Court acquitted 
the other two accused. 
13. Hence, it can be safely concluded from the evidence led in the 
present case that the appellant’s overt act of killing the deceased happened 
during a ﬁ t of anger in the heat of a passionate verbal quarrel and would fall 
under
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Moreover, the clear intent needed to 
prove culpable homicide amounting to murder has also not been established 
by the prosecution.
14. The appeal is partly allowed.
15. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is Converted to Section 
304 Part-I with sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and ﬁ ne of 
Rs. 50,000/-, to be paid to the victim’s family.
Headnotes prepared by: 
Appeal partly allowed.
Ankit Gyan