Question:

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.

Show Hint

Even if the killing occurred after a sudden quarrel, actions taken after the quarrel (like procuring a weapon and deliberately going to the victim's house) can show premeditation and make the act murder.
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • X has committed murder
  • X has not committed an offence of murder since it was committed in sudden fight in a heat of passion
  • X has not committed murder of Y because he had no enmity with Y
  • X has committed no offence
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

The principle provided specifies that killing is not considered murder if it happens in a heat of passion during a sudden quarrel and without premeditation. However, in this case, while there was a sudden quarrel between X and Y, the critical factor is that X went back to his shop, procured a knife, and then went to Y's residence to stab him. This indicates that the killing was premeditated, even if there was an earlier quarrel. The act of procuring a knife and going to Y's residence shows a deliberate intent to harm, making it murder. The act was not spontaneous, but rather planned after a brief delay. Therefore, the act of X stabbing Y would be classified as murder, even though it was done following a quarrel.
Thus, the correct answer is (A).
Option (B) is incorrect because the fact that X went back to his shop, procured a knife, and went to Y's house suggests premeditation. Option (C) is incorrect because the absence of enmity does not change the fact that the act was premeditated. Option (D) is incorrect because the act of killing after procuring a weapon and traveling to the victim's residence constitutes an offence.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

The question is about whether a two-hour gap between the initial quarrel and the actual killing takes this case out of the sudden fight, no premeditation exception. Let's go through the options.

  1. X has committed murder: After the quarrel at the liquor shop, X did not act in the heat of that moment. He walked back to his own shop, deliberately picked up a knife, and travelled to Y's house two hours later to carry out the stabbing. That gap and the act of arming himself show planning, which takes the killing outside the sudden-fight exception and into murder.
  2. X has not committed an offence of murder, since it was a sudden fight in the heat of passion: This would fit if X had stabbed Y right there at the shop during the quarrel. Instead, X left, got a weapon, and travelled to Y's residence afterward, which is the opposite of an unplanned, in-the-moment reaction.
  3. X has not committed murder because he had no enmity with Y: Enmity is not a requirement for murder; what matters is whether the killing was premeditated. Even without prior enmity, procuring a knife and going to Y's house shows the deliberate intent the exception is meant to exclude.
  4. X has committed no offence: Stabbing someone to death is plainly a criminal act, and nothing in the facts suggests any lawful justification or defence for it. This option has no support at all.

Since X had time to cool off, chose to arm himself, and travelled to Y's residence before attacking, the killing was planned rather than a spontaneous reaction to the earlier quarrel.

So the correct answer is X has committed murder.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -3

This question is about whether the exception's own conditions, no premeditation, heat of passion, sudden fight, are actually met, rather than whether a quarrel happened at all. Each wrong option assumes a condition that the facts do not support.

  1. X has committed murder: This option correctly tracks what actually happened, a two-hour gap, a trip back to X's own shop, and the deliberate act of arming himself before travelling to Y's house, none of which fits an unplanned, in-the-moment reaction.
  2. Not murder, since it was a sudden fight in the heat of passion: This option assumes the stabbing happened during or immediately after the original quarrel, but it actually happened two hours later, at a different location, after X deliberately went and got a weapon, which is the opposite of a sudden, unplanned response.
  3. Not murder, since X had no enmity with Y: This option assumes enmity is a requirement for murder, but what actually removes the sudden-fight exception is premeditation, shown here by the gap and the trip for the knife, not the presence or absence of a prior grudge.
  4. X has committed no offence: This option assumes some lawful justification exists for the stabbing, but nothing in the facts supports any defence at all; a deliberate, armed attack after time to cool off is squarely a criminal act.

Since the actual sequence, a delay, a return home, procuring a weapon, and a deliberate trip to Y's house, shows planning rather than a spontaneous reaction, the conditions the sudden-fight exception requires are simply not met here.

Therefore, the correct answer is X has committed murder.

Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CLAT Legal Studies Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Criminal Law Questions

View More Questions

Top CLAT Questions

View More Questions