In case of Vijay Kumar vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police supreme court evaluated the judicial criteria determining whether murder convictions could qualify as culpable homicide not amounting to murder yet. According to Exception 1 of Section 300 in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) culpable homicide does not become murder when the individual suffers loss of self-control from grave and sudden provocation originating from the promiscuous behavior of the deceased. The Court stated that this provocation exception requires both grave and sudden circumstances to justify replacing murder charges with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. When either situation lacks viability the provision remains invalid. Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC applies to situations where homicide becomes lawful after unexpected provocation which occurs without planning or premeditation when viewed alongside a short temporal gap between provocation and execution of the act. According to the Court the time span of less than one minute between provocation and an act constitutes suddenness whereas anything beyond six hours does not. Such a test assesses the severity of the provocation by examining whether an ordinary person under resembling conditions would lose composure according to cultural expectations while taking personal history into account. Through court testimony it emerged that the appellant encountered a heavily intoxicated deceased person underneath a bridge before becoming physically assaulted and striking the deceased with a cement brick. Originally the Trial Court accepted Exception 1 as a defense which the High Court later confirmed. The Supreme Court determined that while the event happened during a fit of anger there was insufficient proof that the act of provocation exceeded essential limits according to Exception 1 standards. The Court recommended Exception 4 could have served better than Exception 4 as the condition of culpable homicide resulting from sudden competitive fighting without preceding planning. The Supreme Court declined to change the original judgment but transformed the sentence into the amount of time the appellant already spent in detention.