Exceptions to Section 300 IPC Amaresh Patel LANDMARK JUDGMENT Fri, May 28, 2021, at ,10:17 AM Title of the Case – Exceptions to Section 300 IPCName of the case – Sunder Lal vs. State., Crl.A. 909/2001 (Delhi High Court)Date of Judgment – 21st August, 2019Judges: Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Brijesh SethiSubject and sections involved – Section 302 and 34 of IPCIssue: Whether the accused in entitled to benefit under exception provided u/s 300 IPC? Fact of the Case: Sunder Lal was convicted for the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. According to the statement of appellant u/s 313 CrPC, he was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in the case. Ratio of the case - The division bench of Delhi High Court observed that the case do not fall under any of the exceptions provided u/s 300 of IPC, and the conviction of the appellant u/s 302 IPC, resultantly, cannot be converted to that of Section 304 IPC.Non-establishment of MotiveBipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91“It is settled legal proposition that even if the absence of motive as alleged is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance.”Effect of Conviction u/s 302 r/w section 34 IPCPalakom Abdul Rahiman v. The Station House Officer Badiadka Police Station, AIR 2019 SC 1891 “The application of principles enunciated in Section 34 IPC, when an accused is convicted u/s 302 r/w section 34 IPC, in law means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. As was observed bythis Court in Chinta Pulla Reddy and other case, section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself.”