15 December 2025 Legal Updates

EXCEPTION 4 TO S. 300 IPC WON'T APPLY WHEN MURDER HAPPENED IN ONESIDED ATTACK WITH NO MUTUAL EXCHANGE OF BLOWS: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Surender Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh 

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) 

(c) Date of Decision: 

• December 09, 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan 

Facts of the Case

The appellant, Surender Kumar, was convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder) by the trial court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court issued a limited notice to consider whether the appellant could be convicted for a lesser offence than murder under Section 302 IPC.

Key Arguments of the Appellant

1. The incident was preceded by a quarrel; the deceased was a drug addict and shouts were heard before the incident.

2. It was argued that the case could fall under:

• Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC: Private defence (exceeding the right to self-defence)
• Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: Sudden fight without premeditation in the heat of passion
• Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC: Grave and sudden provocation

Court’s Analysis & Decision

• On Exception 2 (Self-defence): No evidence showed that the deceased attacked the appellant or his property.  The appellant did not raise self-defence in his Section 313 CrPC statement.  Held: Exception 2 not applicable.
• On Exception 4 (Sudden Fight):  A “fight” requires mutual assault, not just a verbal quarrel. Here, the deceased was unarmed and there was no exchange of blows. Four knife blows were inflicted on vital parts, indicating cruelty. Held: Exception 4 not applicable.
• On Exception 1 (Grave Provocation):  No evidence showed provocation so grave as to deprive the appellant of self-control.  Held: Exception 1 not applicable.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court found no mitigating circumstances to convert the offence to a lesser one. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld.

Legal Principles Highlighted

• Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC: Requires evidence of an attack on the accused or his property.
• Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: Requires a “sudden fight” involving mutual assault, not a one-sided attack.
• Burden of Proof: The accused must lead defence evidence or raise relevant pleas (e.g., under Section 313 CrPC) to avail exceptions under Section 300 IPC.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED FOR ISSUES FINALLY ADJUDICATED IN FOREIGN COUNTRY: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Adil Noshir Mithaiwala v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• November 13, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Facts of the Case

The appellants were accused of offences under Sections 420, 406, 408, 409, 477A read with Sections 120B and 34 of the IPC. The complaint was filed by a UAEbased firm, M/s Asia Exchange Centre, through a Power of Attorney (PoA) holder, as the firm had no presence in India. Earlier, the same complainant had initiated both civil and criminal proceedings in the United Arab Emirates for the same alleged offence. Both proceedings were dismissed and had attained finality.

Key Legal Issue

Whether criminal proceedings under Section 200 CrPC can be sustained in India when the same dispute has already been adjudicated and dismissed by courts in a foreign country.

Court’s Analysis & Decision

• Abuse of Process of Law: The Supreme Court held that continuing criminal proceedings in India after the matter had been finally decided in UAE courts amounted to an abuse of the legal process and violated the principle against double jeopardy.
• Concealment of Facts: The complainant concealed the dismissal of earlier civil and criminal proceedings from the Indian magistrate. This nondisclosure was fatal to the maintainability of the complaint.
• Invalidity of PoA Holder’s Complaint:  The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that an agent (PoA holder) cannot depose on facts known exclusively to the principal (the complainant firm), especially when the principal is absent and the earlier proceedings were not disclosed.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the magistrate and allowed both appeals.

Legal Principles

• Double Jeopardy: A person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence.
• Abuse of Process: Courts can quash proceedings if they are found to be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the legal system.
• Power of Attorney Limitations: An agent cannot give evidence on matters within the exclusive knowledge of the principal.
• Duty of Disclosure: Complainants must disclose earlier proceedings on the same cause of action.