Principle: Killing is not murder, if it is committed in a sudden fight without pre-meditation in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
Facts: X and Y were buying liquor from a liquor shop at 7 pm. Y abused X and there was quarrel between them. X told Y that he will not spare him and Y shouted that his house is adjoining the shop only and if X had the guts, he can come anytime. X went back to his shop which was nearby, procured a knife and went to Y's residence at 9 pm and stabbed him to death.

Question

“There is no gainsaying that an able bodied youthful Jawan when physically assaulted by his superior may be in a state of provocation. The gravity of such a provocation may be heightened if the physical beating was meant to force him to submit to unnatural carnal intercourse to satisfy the superior’s lust. The store room incident involving the appellant and the deceased is alleged to have taken place when the deceased had bolted the door of the store room to keep out any intruder from seeing what was happening inside. By any standard the act of a superior to humiliate and force his subordinate in a closed room to succumb to the lustful design of the former was a potent recipe for anyone placed in the appellant’s position to revolt and retaliate against the treatment being given to him. What may have happened inside the store room if the appellant had indeed revolted and retaliated against the unbecoming conduct of the deceased is a matter of conjecture. The appellant or any one in his position may have retaliated violently to the grave peril of his tormentor. The fact of the matter, however, is that the appellant appears to have borne the assault without any retaliation against the deceased-superior and somehow managed to escape from the room…All that the evidence proves is that after the said incident
the appellant was seen crying and depressed and when asked by his colleagues, he is said to have narrated his tale of humiliation at the hands of the deceased…. That appears to have happened in the present case also for the appellant’s version is that he and his colleagues had planned to avenge the humiliation by beating up the deceased in the evening when they all assemble near the water heating point. That apart, the appellant attended to his normal duty during the day time and after the evening dinner, went to perform his guard duty at 2100 hrs.”
[Extracted from B.D Khunte v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2328 of 2014, para 12-13].

Answer 1

Step 1: Understanding the Principle:
A killing is not murder if it happens in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion arising from a sudden quarrel; the exception needs the act to follow immediately and without planning.

Step 2: Applying the Principle to the Facts:
X and Y quarrelled at the liquor shop at 7 pm. X then went back to his own shop, picked up a knife, and travelled to Y's residence, arriving around 9 pm to stab him. The two-hour gap and the act of fetching a weapon show that X had time to plan rather than act in the heat of the moment.

Step 3: Evaluating the Other Options:
Calling this a sudden fight ignores the deliberate gap and the trip to get a knife. The absence of prior enmity does not matter, since premeditation, not personal history, is what removes the exception, and the act clearly is an offence, not a lawful one.

Step 4: Final Answer:
X has committed murder, since the stabbing followed a period of planning rather than a sudden, unplanned reaction.

Answer 2

Major premise: a killing is not murder if it happens in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion arising from a sudden quarrel, immediately and without planning. Minor premise: X and Y quarrelled at 7 pm; X then went to his own shop, procured a knife, and travelled to Y's residence, stabbing him around 9 pm. Testing the conclusions:

X has committed murder: This follows directly, since the two-hour gap and the deliberate act of arming himself show planning, which takes the case outside the major premise's exception entirely.
Not murder, sudden fight in heat of passion: This conclusion needs the stabbing to have occurred immediately during the quarrel itself, but the minor premise places it two hours later, after a deliberate trip for a weapon, which the major premise's exception does not cover.
Not murder, no enmity with Y: This conclusion needs enmity, or its absence, to be part of the major premise, but the major premise turns entirely on premeditation and timing, not on the parties' prior relationship.
No offence at all: This conclusion needs some lawful justification present in the minor premise, and none exists; a deliberate armed attack is plainly within the general offence of causing death, whichever category it falls into.

Only the first option follows once the delay and the deliberate procurement of the knife in the minor premise are tested against the immediacy the major premise's exception requires.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed murder.

Answer 3

Major premise: a killing is not murder if it happens in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion arising from a sudden quarrel, immediately and without planning. Minor premise: X and Y quarrelled at 7 pm; X then went to his own shop, procured a knife, and travelled to Y's residence, stabbing him around 9 pm. Testing the conclusions:

X has committed murder: This follows directly, since the two-hour gap and the deliberate act of arming himself show planning, which takes the case outside the major premise's exception entirely.
Not murder, sudden fight in heat of passion: This conclusion needs the stabbing to have occurred immediately during the quarrel itself, but the minor premise places it two hours later, after a deliberate trip for a weapon, which the major premise's exception does not cover.
Not murder, no enmity with Y: This conclusion needs enmity, or its absence, to be part of the major premise, but the major premise turns entirely on premeditation and timing, not on the parties' prior relationship.
No offence at all: This conclusion needs some lawful justification present in the minor premise, and none exists; a deliberate armed attack is plainly within the general offence of causing death, whichever category it falls into.

Only the first option follows once the delay and the deliberate procurement of the knife in the minor premise are tested against the immediacy the major premise's exception requires.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed murder.

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Criminal Law

Questions Asked in CLAT exam