Guilty Knowledge
In the case of Willie (William) Slaney vs State of Madhya Prodesh reported in AIR 1956 SC 116 the accused was in love with the sister of the deceased who did not like the intimacy and on the day of occurrence there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and the accused was asked to get away from the house of the sister. Shortly afterwards the accused returned with his younger brother and called the sister to come out of the house but the deceased only came out when there was a heated exchange of words between them and the accused slapped the deceased on her cheek. The accused lifted his fist and the accused snatched a hockey stick from his younger brother and gave one blow on his head with a hockey stick with the result that his skull was fractured'. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was likely to cause death and on the given facts and circumstances the Indian Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision held that "on the facts and circumstance of the case the offence fell under section 304 Part Il and not under section 302. Admittedly there was no premeditation and there was a sudden fight. The nature of the injury was such that the accused could not be attributed with the special knowledge required by section 300, nor was the injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death." [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 97]
Guilty Knowledge
In the instant case also death caused not on pre-meditated act nor with intention to kill but on a sudden fight when the deceased caught hold of the neck of the convict-petitioner by his collar the petitioner also caught hold of the neck/throat of the deceased in course of altercations and quarrels. Thus it is clear that the convict-petitioner did not have the intention to kill the victim. The death was caused because of not only sudden provocation but also as a measure of defence or saving himself on the event of being attacked or in course of free fight. Another thing is to be kept in mind that PWs 5, admitted that the convict petitioner and the deceased had regular altercations and quarrels on different issues when they had been living as husband and wife. But no evidence has been led that the convict-petitioner ever took any such attempt to kill her earlier. [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 97]
Guilty Knowledge
From the above fact and circumstances it can easily be concluded that neither of the five exceptions to section 300 can be attracted in the present case. This Division in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of Bangladesh vs Siddique Ahmed reported in 31 DLR (AD) 29 held:
"where the finding is that the accused has the guilty intention of causing such injury as is likely to cause death the offence cannot be converted into one under Part I of the Code, unless it is brought to any of the 5 exceptions of section 300,"
It also held:
"the first part applies to a case where there is guilty intention and the second part where there is no such intention but there is guilty knowledge." [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 97]
