SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bansi vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 9 May, 2019

$~
*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI
+CRL.A.589/2004

BANSI…..Appellant
ThroughMr.MadhukarPandeywith
Ms.DamanjitKaur,Mr.Shubham
SharmaandMr.PraneshMisra,
Advocates.

versus

THESTATE(NCTOFDELHI)…..Respondent
ThroughMr.RajatKatyal,Advocateforthe
StatewithSISudhirRathorPSMoti
Nagar.

%DateofDecision:09thMay,2019

CORAM:
HON’BLEMR.JUSTICEMANMOHAN
HON’BLEMS.JUSTICESANGITADHINGRASEHGAL
JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN,J:(Oral)

1.Presentappealhasbeenfiledchallengingthejudgmentofconviction
dated15thMay,2004andanorderonsentencedated19thMay,2004,passed
bythelearnedASJwhereunder,theappellanthasbeenheldguiltyunder
Sections302/Section307/Section324IPCandsentencedtoundergoimprisonmentforlife
andtopayfineofRs.500/-underSection302IPC.Indefaultofpaymentof
fine,hewasdirectedtoundergosimpleimprisonmentoftwomonths.
Further,theappellanthasbeensentencedtoimprisonmentforlifeunder

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page1of26
Section307IPCandpayfineofRs.500/-.Indefaultofpaymentoffine,he
wasdirectedtoundergosimpleimprisonmentoftwomonths.Lastly,the
appellanthasbeensentencedtoundergorigorousimprisonmentforoneyear
underSection324IPC.Allthesentencesweredirectedtorunconcurrently.
TherelevantportionoftheTrialCourtjudgmentdated15thMay,2004is
reproducedhereinbelow:-

―27.PW1AmritRamhasfullysupportedthecaseoftheprosecution
onallthematerialpointsandinallthematerialparticulars.Hehas
statedthatontheallegeddateandtimehewaspresentatthehouse
ofhisPhoopha,deceasedRajKumaratBasaiDaraPur.Atabout
11PMhewastakingmealatthehouseofdeceasedRajKumar.His
brotherPW2Chandeshwarwasalsowiththematthattime.Inthe
meantimeaccusedBansiwhowastheneighbourerofdeceasedRaj
Kumarcamethereandknockedatthedoor.AccusedBansicalled
RajKumardeceasedandtookdeceasedwithhimbutdeceasedRaj
Kumarreturnedtothehouse.ThereafteraccusedBansiagaincame
tothehouseofdeceasedandheagaintookdeceasedRajKumarwith
him.PW1alsoaccompaniedwithdeceasedRajKumar.Hehas
furtherstatedthatdeceasedRajKumarandaccusedBansiwere
takingliquorandthatthereafteranaltercationtookplacebetween
deceasedRajKumarandaccusedBansi.Accusedwaslockedinside
hisroomandtheyboltedtheroomfromoutside.AccusedBansi
againstartedabusingRajKumardeceasedandaccusedcontinued
abusingdeceased.AccusedwasallegingthatdeceasedRajKumar
hadillicitrelationswiththewifeofaccusedandonthataccounthe
wasabusingRajKumardeceased.Accusedwassayingthathe
wouldkillRajKumarandhiswife.ThereafterdeceasedRajKumar
wenttothehouseofhislandlordandbroughthimatthespot.
LandlordalsotriedtomakeBansiunderstandbuthedidnotpayany
attention.DeceasedRajKumarthenopenedthekundifromoutside
andaccusedBansicameoutsidetheroom.AssoonasdeceasedRaj
KumaropenedthedooraccusedBansistabbeddeceasedRajKumar
withaknifeonhisabdomen.AftercausinginjuriestodeceasedRaj
Kumar,accusedBansialsoinflictedknifeinjuriestohiswifeonher
abdomen.WhenPW1AmritRamtriedtointervene,healsoreceived

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page2of26
injuriesonfingerofhislefthand.LandlordthentookdeceasedRaj
KumartoKhetarpalNursingHomeinacarwhereRajKumardied.
WifeofaccusedBansiwasalsoremovedtoHandaNursingHome,
RajaGarden,Delhi.

PW1hasbeencrossexaminedonbehalfofaccusedbutnothing
materialcameoutfromhiscrossexaminationwhichmayhelpthe
accusedinanymanner.Hehasdeniedthesuggestionthatdeceased
RajKumarwashavingillicitrelationswiththewifeofaccusedand
thathewasnotpresentatthespotatthetimeofincidentandis
deposingfalsely.Hehasalsodeniedthesuggestionthatbloodwas
notliftedfromthespotinhispresence.Hehasalsodeniedthe
suggestionthathealongwithdeceasedRajKumarhadtornoffthe
clothesofwifeofaccusedandalsomisbehavedwithherandthathe
hadinflictedtheinjuriesonthewifeofaccused.

28)PW2Chandeshwarhasalsosupportedthecaseofthe
prosecutiononallthematerialpointsandhascorroboratedthe
testimonyofPW1inallthematerialparticulars.Althoughhehas
alsobeencrossexaminedonbehalfofaccused,yetnothingmaterial
cameoutfromhismouthwhichmayhelptheaccused.Hehasstated
inhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedthataccusedRaj
Kumarwasnothisrelativeanddeceasedwasonlyknowntohim.He
hasdeniedthesuggestionthatheanddeceasedRajKumarhadgone
totheroomofaccusedandthatheanddeceasedRajKumarhad
torntheclothesofthewifeofaccusedandalsomisbehavedwithher.
HehasdeniedthesuggestionthatdeceasedRajKumarwashaving
illicitrelationswiththewifeofaccusedorthatheisdeposingfalsely.

29)PW3SatinderSinghislandlordofthehouseinwhichaccused
BansiandPW2Chandeshwarwerelivingastenants.Hehasalso
supportedtheprosecutioncaseonallthematerialpointsexceptthe
factthathecannotsayhowdeceasedRajKumarreceivedinjuries
buthehasstatedthatdeceasedRajKumarhadtoldhimthathehad
beenhitbyaccusedwithknifeonhisabdomen.Hehasstatedthathe
hadnotseenaccusedcausinginjuriestodeceasedRajKumarand
thathehadalsonotstatedthisfacttothepoliceinhisstatement.He
alsostatedthathehadnotseenaccusedcausinginjuriestohiswife
norhehadmadeanystatementtothepolice.Thiswitnesshasbeen
declaredhostileandpermittedtobecrossexaminedbytheLd.Addl.

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page3of26

PPfortheState.HehasdeniedallthesuggestionsofLd.Addl.PP
fortheStateinhiscrossexamination.PW3hasnotbeencross
examinedonbehalfofaccusedalthoughopportunityforthesame
hasbeengiventotheLd.counselforaccused.Itremainsun-
challengedonrecordthatdeceasedRajKumarhadtoldhimthat
deceasedhadbeenhitbyaccusedwithknifeonhisstomach.

30)PW7Smt.Geetaisthewifeofaccused.Shehasnotsupported
theprosecutioncaseandhasbeendeclaredhostileandhasbeen
permittedtobecrossexaminedbytheLd.Addl.PPfortheState.
ShehasdeniedthesuggestionthatherhusbandaccusedBansihad
causedinjuriestodeceasedRajKumarwithaknifeonhisabdomen
andwhensheintervenedaccusedalsocausedinjuriesonher
stomachwiththesameknife.Shehasalsodeniedthesuggestionthat
accusedusedtosuspectherofhavingillicitrelationswiththe
deceasedRajKumar.Itseemsthatbeingwifeofaccusedshehasnot
supportedthecaseofprosecutioninordertosavetheaccusedfrom
legalpunishment.Inherexaminationinchiefshehasstatedthat
deceasedRajKumarremovedherclothesforciblyanddeceased
committedrapewithher.InthisrespectPW15InspectorSSJakhar
hasstatedthatPW7Smt.Geetadidnotdiscloseaboutanyrape.On
enquiriesPW15cametoknowthataccusedhadsuspectedhiswife
Smt.Geetaaboutsomeillicitrelationsanditcouldbethemotiveof
murder.Hehasalsoadmittedascorrectthatitwasthereasonfor
murderofdeceasedRajKumar.PW15hasstatedthatherecorded
thestatementofPW3SatinderSinghandPW7Smt.Geeta.Hehas
alsostatedthathedidnotreceiveanycomplaintfromanyofthe
partybeforethisincident.HehasalsodeniedthesuggestionofLd.
Counselonbehalfofaccusedthathedidnottakeanyactionagainst
complainantAmritRamunderSection376IPC.Hehasstatedthat
Smt.Geetadidnotallegeanythingabouttherape.Pleaofthe
accusedBansiappearstobeanafterthought.

31)ThetestimoniesofPW1AmritRamandPW2Chandeshwar
appeartobequitenatural,reliableandtrustworthy.Theirpresence
atthespotatthetimeofallegedincidentcannotbedoubted.There
isnoreasononrecordastowhytheyshoulddeposefalselyagainst
accusedandastowhybothofthemshouldfalselyimplicatehimin
thiscase.ThemerefactthatPW1AmritRamistherelativeof

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page4of26
deceasedRajKumarisnotsufficienttodiscardhistestimony.
Moreover,PW2hasstatedthatRajKumardeceasedwasnothis
relativeandthathewasonlyknowntohim.Thereisnoreasonon
recordastowhyPW2shoulddeposefalselyagainstaccusedandas
towhyPW2shouldimplicatehiminthiscase.‖

2.Thesentenceoftheappellantwassuspendedvideorderdated26th
September,2006.Theappellanthasundergonesentenceforfiveyearsand
onemonthandearnedaremissionforninemonthsandtwenty-fivedays.

3.On01stMay,2019,learnedcounselfortheappellantstatedbeforethis
Courtthathehadinstructionsnottoaddressargumentsonmeritsofthe
case,buttoaddresstheCourtontheorderonsentenceonly.Hehadstated
thatitwasafitcasewheretheconvictionunderSection302IPCoughttobe
modifiedtoSection304,Part-IISectionIPC.

4.Mr.MadhukarPandey,learnedcounselfortheappellantstatesthat
therewasasuddenandinstantaneousaltercationwithoutpremeditation
betweentheappellantandthedeceased,whiletheywereconsumingliquor,
ontheissueofillicitrelationshipbetweenthedeceasedandthewifeofthe
appellant,whichultimatelyledtotheappellantinflictingasingleblowupon
thedeceasedintheheatofpassionwithasmallkitchenknife,whichwas
alreadyavailableintheroomalongwithotherutensils.

5.Learnedcounselfortheappellantpointsoutthattheprimeeye
witnessesinthepresentcasearePW-1,PW-2,PW-3andPW-7.Hestates
thatthoughPW-1andPW-2arerelativesofthedeceased,yetabareperusal
oftheirdepositionswouldreflectthattheappellanthadaccusedPW-1and
PW-2ofmisbehavingwithhiswife.

6.Learnedcounselfortheappellantcontendsthatthereisnothingon

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page5of26
recordtoshowthattheappellanthadtakenundueadvantageoforactedina
cruelorunusualmannertowardsthedeceasedashewaslockedinsidea
roomattheinstanceofdeceasedbyPW-1andPW-2andhadnoopportunity
todoanyovertactthatwastohisadvantage.

7.HesubmitsthatthepresentcaseisbeyondthescopeofSection300
IPCandatbesttheappellantcouldhavebeenconvictedunderSection304
Part-IIIPC.Insupportofthesubmission,learnedcounselfortheappellant
reliesuponthejudgmentsoftheApexCourtinMuthuVs.Stateby
InspectorofPolice,TamilNadu,(2009)17SCC433;BehraVs.Stateof
Rajasthan,(2000)10SCC225andKunhayippuVs.StateofKerala,(2000)
10SCC307.Therelevantportionsofthesaidjudgmentsarereproduced
hereinbelow:-

(i)MuthuVs.StatebyInspectorofPolice,TamilNadu;(2009)17SCC
433:-

―12.WemayalsorefertoException4toSection300IPCwhich
readsasunder:

―Exception4.–Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifitis
committedwithoutpremeditationinasuddenfightinthe
heatofpassionuponasuddenquarrelandwithoutthe
offender’shavingtakenundueadvantageoractedinacruel
orunusualmanner.‖

13.ThedifferencebetweenException1andException4toSection
300hasbeenexplainedbythisCourtinSectionPappuv.Stateof
M.P.[(2006)7SCC391:(2006)3SCC(Cri)283]Inouropinion,
thepresentcasealsocomesunderException4toSection300IPC
sincetheingredientsofException4areallsatisfiedinthefactsof
thepresentcase.

14.Inouropinion,throwingwasteandrubbishinsidethehouseor
shopofsomebodyiscertainlyagraveandsuddenprovocation.
Everyonewishestokeephispremisesneatandclean,andislikely
tolosehisself-controlinsuchasituation.Theincidentinquestion

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page6of26
occurredinasuddenfightandaheatofpassionbyasudden
quarrelwithouttheappellanthavingtakenundueadvantageor
actedinacruelorunusualmanner.Hencetheappellantisentitled
tothebenefitofExceptions1and4andthecasecomesunder
Section304IPC.

15.Thenextquestioniswhetherthecasewillcomeunderthefirst
partorthesecondpartofSection304IPC.Inouropinionitwill
comeunderthesecondpartinviewofthedecisionsofthisCourt
inSectionRameshVithalraoThakrev.StateofMaharashtra[(2009)17
SCC438:AIR1995SC1453],SectionSarupSinghv.Stateof
Haryana[(2009)16SCC479:(2010)3SCC(Cri)329],SectionMavila
ThambanNambiarv.StateofKerala[(2009)17SCC441:1997
SCC(Cri)726],SectionSudhirSamantav.StateofW.B.[(1998)1SCC
581:1998SCC(Cri)461],SectionK.RamakrishnanUnnithanv.Stateof
Kerala[(1999)3SCC309:1999SCC(Cri)410:AIR1999SC
1428],SectionTholanv.StateofT.N.[(1984)2SCC133:1984SCC
(Cri)164],SectionJagpativ.StateofM.P.[1994Supp(1)SCC460:

1995SCC(Cri)397:AIR1993SC1360],SectionTarsemSinghv.State
ofPunjab[(2002)2SCC673:2002SCC(Cri)465],SectionHari
Ramv.StateofHaryana[(1983)1SCC193:1983SCC(Cri)159
:AIR1983SC185],SectionRandhirSinghv.StateofPunjab[(1981)4
SCC484:1981SCC(Cri)856],SectionKulwantRaiv.Stateof
Punjab[(1981)4SCC245:1981SCC(Cri)826]
andSectionShankarv.StateofM.P.[(1979)3SCC318:1979SCC(Cri)
632:AIR1979SC1532]‖

(ii)BehraVs.StateofRajasthan;(2000)10SCC225:-

―2……..Thelearnedcounselfurtherstatedthatevenifthe
evidenceofPWs2and3isbelieved,takingintoaccountthefact
andscenariounderwhichtheallegedassaultwasgivenbythe
accused,theoffencecouldnotbeunderSection302butatthe
bestwouldbeunderSection304PartII…………..Fromthe
evidenceofPWs2and3itiscrystalclearthattheaccusedand
thedeceasedhadsomequarrelinthehouseofBhana.Onthe
roadwhiletheyquarrelledwitheachother,suddenlytheaccused
broughtouttheknifeandgavetheblowwhichstruckthechestof
thedeceased.Onthesefacts,itisdifficulttoholdthatthe

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page7of26
accusedgavetheblowwiththerequisiteintentionofcausing
murderofthedeceased.Inthisviewofthematter,theconviction
oftheappellantunderSection302cannotbesustained.Sincein
angerwhilequarrelling,theaccusedhadgiventheblowwhich
ultimatelyresultedinthedeathofthedeceased,theoffence
wouldbeoneunderSection304PartII.‖

(iii)KunhayippuVs.StateofKerala;(2000)10SCC307:-

―2………..Lastly,thecounselarguedthateveniftheprosecution
caseisbelieved,thentheoffencewouldnotbeoneunderSection
302inasmuchastheaccused,whowasonfriendlytermswiththe
deceasedtillaskingforaglassofjuice,suddenlygaveoneblowand
thatwasfromthebacksidewhich,ofcourse,ultimatelybecame
fatal.

3.Havingexaminedtherivalcontentionsandonscrutinisingthe
twojudgmentsandtheevidenceofthetwoeyewitnesses,thoughwe
agreewiththesubmissionofthelearnedcounselfortheappellant
thatexaminationofAshokKumarcouldhaveunfoldedthe
prosecutioncaseindetailbuttheimpugnedjudgmentoftheHigh
CourtindicatesthereasonsastowhyAshokKumarcouldnotbe
examined,eventhoughhewastobeexaminedbytheCourtitselfas
Witness1,andaccordingtotheimpugnedjudgment,the
whereaboutsofthesaidAshokKumarcouldnotbefoundoutfor
whichhecouldnotbeexamined…………….Fromtheevidenceof
PW1itappearsthatboththeaccusedandthedeceasedwereina
friendlymoodwhenoneaskedforaglassofjuicefromtheother.
ShortlythereafterwhilethedeceasedhadlefttheshopofPW1,the
accusedwentbehindandgavetheblowinquestionandfurther,the
blowinquestionhadbeengivenfromthebacksideandonlya
singleblowhadbeengiven.Inthesecircumstances,itisdifficultfor
ustoholdthattheaccusedcanbesaidtohavehadthenecessary
intentionforcausingthemurderofthedeceasedwhilegivingthe
blowinquestion,thoughultimatelytheblowhadbecomefatal.We,
therefore,setasidetheconvictionoftheappellantunderSection
302andconvicthimunderSection304PartIIandsentencehimto
imprisonmentfor5years.‖

8.Heemphasisesthattheweaponallegedlyusedbytheappellantwasa

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page8of26
smallvegetableknife,thedimensionsofwhichweresuchthattheappellant
couldhavenoknowledgethatitssingleblowcouldprovefataland/orlikely
tocausedeathofthedeceased.

9.Learnedcounselforappellantlastlystatesthattheappellant-accused
isagedabout50yearsandisthesolebreadearnerofhisfamilycomprising
hiswifeandthreechildren.Hestatesthathiswifeisamerehousewife,
whilehiseldestdaughterandsonarebothunemployedandfinancially
dependentonhim.Healsostatesthathisyoungestdaughterisonlyaged
about10yearsandtheappellantbeingamanofindigentmeanshasto
struggletomaketheendsmeetforhisfamilyandgraveprejudicewouldbe
causedtohimaswellashisfamilyincasethereliefprayedforisnot
granted.

10.Percontra,learnedcounselfortheStatesubmitsthattheessentialpre-
conditionsforapplicationofException4toSection300IPCreadwith
Section304Part-IIarethattheremustbeamutualcombatorsuddenfight-
whichismissinginthepresentcase.

11.Insupportofhissubmission,hereliesuponthejudgmentoftheApex
CourtinKikarSinghVs.StateofRajasthan;AIR1993SC2426,wherein
ithasbeenheldasunder:-

―8.Thecounselattemptedtobringthecasewithinexception4.
Foritsapplicationalltheconditionsenumeratedthereinmustbe
satisfied.Theactmustbecommittedwithoutpremeditationina
suddenfightintheheatofpassion;(2)uponasuddenquarrel;(3)
withouttheoffender’shavingtakenundueadvantage;(4)andthe
accusedhadnotactedinacruelorunusualmanner.Therefore,
theremustbeamutualcombatorexchangingblowsoneach
other.Andhoweverslightthefirstblow,orprovocation,every
freshblowbecomesafreshprovocation.Thebloodisalready
heatedorwarmsupateverysubsequentstroke.Thevoiceof

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page9of26
reasonisheardonneithersideintheheatofpassion.Therefore,it
isdifficulttoapportionbetweenthemrespectivedegreesofblame
withreferencetothestateofthingsatthecommencementofthe
fraybutitmustoccurasaconsequenceofasuddenfighti.e.
mutualcombatandnotonesidetrack.Itmattersnotwhatthe
causeofthequarrelis,whetherrealorimaginary,orwhodraws
orstrikesfirst.Thestrikeoftheblowmustbewithoutanyintention
tokillorseriouslyinjuretheother.Iftwomenstartfightingand
oneofthemisunarmedwhiletheotherusesadeadlyweapon,the
onewhousessuchweaponmustbeheldtohavetakenanundue
advantagedenyinghimtheentitlementtoexception4.Truethe
numberofwoundisnotthecriterion,butthepositionofthe
accusedandthedeceasedwithregardtotheirarmsused,the
mannerofcombatmustbekeptinmindwhenapplyingexception

4.Whenthedeceasedwasnotarmedbuttheaccusedwasand
causedinjuriestothedeceasedwithfatalresults,theexception4
engraftedtoSection300isexceptedandtheoffencescommitted
wouldbeoneofmurder.

9.Theoccasionforsuddenquarrelmustnotonlybesudden
butthepartyassaultedmustbeonanequalfootinginpointof
defence,atleastattheonset.Thisisspeciallysowheretheattack
ismadewithdangerousweapons.Wherethedeceasedwas
unarmedanddidnotcauseanyinjurytotheaccusedeven
followingasuddenquarreliftheaccusedhasinflictedfatelblows
onthedeceased,exception4isnotattractedandcommissionmust
beoneofmurderpunishableunderS.302.Equallyforattracting
exception4itisnecessarythatblowsshouldbeexchangedevenif
theydonotallfindtheirtarget.Evenifthefightisunpremeditated
andsudden,yetiftheinstrumentofmannerofretaliationbe
greatlydisproportionatetotheoffencegiven,andcrueland
dangerousinitsnature,theaccusedcannotbeprotectedunder
exception4.SectionInPandurangNarayanJawalekarv.Stateof
Maharashtra[1979]1SCC132:(AIR1978SC1082),thefacts
provedwerethattheappellantgaveablowontheheadofthe
deceasedoldmanwhowasadvisinghimnottoquarrel.Theinjury
causedtothebrainfromoneendtotheotherresultedinfracture
ascouldappearfromtheevidenceofthedoctor.Itwouldshow
thattheaccusedmusthavestrucktheblowontheheadofthe

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page10of26
deceasedwithanironbarwithverygreatforce.Accordinglyit
washeldthatexception4doesnotapplythoughtherewassudden
quarrelandthatthefightwasnotpremeditatedtocausedeath.It
mustbeshownthattheinjurycausedisnotcruelone.The
convictionforoffenceunderS.302bytheHighCourtreversingthe
acquittalbytrialcourtwasupheld.

10.Iftheweaponusedorthemannerofattackbytheassailant
isoutofallproportiontotheoffencegiventhatcircumstancemust
betakenintoconsiderationtodecidewhetherundueadvantage
hasbeentaken.Whereaperson,duringthecourseofsuddenfight,
withoutpremeditationandprobablyintheheatofpassion,took
undueadvantageandactedinacruelmannerinusingadeadly
weapontherewasnogroundtoholdthathisactdidnotamountto
murder.Therefore,iftheappellantuseddeadlyweaponsagainst
theunarmedmanandstruckhimablowontheheaditmustbe
heldthatheinflictedtheblowswiththeknowledgethattheywould
likelytocausedeathandhehadtakenundueadvantage.Hedid
notstopwiththefirstblow,heinflictedtwomoreblowsonthe
fallenmanandthethirdoneprovedtobefatal.Heactedcruelly
withnojustification.Byhisconducttheappellantdeniedhimself
ofthebenefitofexception4toSectionS.300I.P.C.‖

12.Havingheardlearnedcounselforthepartiesandhavingperusedthe
evidenceonrecord,thisCourtisoftheviewthatitisessentialtofirst
outlinethescopeandambitofException4toSection300IPC.Exception4
toSection300IPC,readsasunder:-

―Exception4.-Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifitiscommitted
withoutpremeditationinasuddenfightintheheatofpassion
uponasuddenquarrelandwithouttheoffenderhavingtaken
undueadvantageoractedinacruelorunusualmanner.‖

13.IntheopinionofthisCourt,toinvokethisexception,fouringredients
havetobesatisfiedi.e.(i)itwasasuddenfight;(ii)therewasno
premeditation;(iii)theactwasdoneinaheatofpassion;and(iv)the

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page11of26
assailanthadnottakenanyundueadvantageoractedinacruelmanner.

14.Oneofusi.e.(Hon’bleMs.JusticeSangitaDhingraSehgalsittingina
DivisionBench)hadanoccasiontoexplaintheambitandscopeofSection
304IPCaswellasException4toSection300IPCinVijayPal.Vs.State
(Govt.ofNCTofDelhi);Crl.A.No.1653/2014dated05.2.2015The
relevantportionofthesaidjudgmentisreproducedhereinbelow:

“WhethertheoffencefallsunderthepurviewofSection304
Part-I

[email protected]
Pradesh(2006)11SCC444theSupremeCourtenumeratedsome
ofthecircumstancesrelevanttofindoutwhethertherewasany
intentiontocausedeathonthepartoftheaccused.TheCourt
observed:

…Therefore,thecourtshouldproceedtodecidethepivotal
questionofintention,withcareandcaution,asthatwilldecide
whetherthecasefallsUnderSection302or304PartIor304
PartII.Manypettyorinsignificantmatters-pluckingofa
fruit,strayingofcattle,quarrelofchildren,utteranceofarude
wordorevenanobjectionableglance,mayleadto
altercationsandgroupclashesculminatingindeaths.Usual
motiveslikerevenge,greed,jealousyorsuspicionmaybe
totallyabsentinsuchcases.Theremaybenointention.There
maybenopremeditation.Infact,theremaynotevenbe
criminality.Attheotherendofthespectrum,theremaybe
casesofmurderwheretheaccusedattemptstoavoidthe
penaltyformurderbyattemptingtoputforthacasethatthere
wasnointentiontocausedeath.Itisforthecourtstoensure
thatthecasesofmurderpunishableUnderSection302,are
notconvertedintooffencespunishableUnderSection304Part
I/II,orcasesofculpablehomicidenotamountingtomurder,
aretreatedasmurderpunishableUnderSection

302.Theintentiontocausedeathcanbegatheredgenerallyfrom
acombinationofafeworseveralofthefollowing,amongother,
circumstances:(i)natureoftheweaponused;(ii)whetherthe

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page12of26
weaponwascarriedbytheaccusedorwaspickedupfromthe
spot;(iii)whethertheblowisaimedatavitalpartofthebody;

(iv)theamountofforceemployedincausinginjury;(v)whether
theactwasinthecourseofsuddenquarrelorsuddenfightorfree
forallfight;(vi)whethertheincidentoccursbychanceorwhether
therewasanypre-meditation;(vii)whethertherewasanyprior
enmityorwhetherthedeceasedwasastranger;(viii)whether
therewasanygraveandsuddenprovocation,andifso,thecause
forsuchprovocation;(ix)whetheritwasintheheatofpassion;

(x)whetherthepersoninflictingtheinjuryhastakenundue
advantageorhasactedinacruelandunusualmanner;(xi)
whethertheaccuseddealtasinglebloworseveralblows.The
abovelistofcircumstancesis,ofcourse,notexhaustiveandthere
maybeseveralotherspecialcircumstanceswithreferenceto
individualcaseswhichmaythrowlightonthequestionof
intention…

36.TheAppellantwasconvictedu/s302oftheSectionIPCinwhichhe
wasconvictedbytheLearnedASJSh.RajeevBansalinthe
impugnedjudgment,butonfurtherevaluationandascontended
bytheappellantthecrimeintheinstantcasedoesnotfullyfall
withintheambitofSectionsection300oftheIPCwhichreadsasunder:

300.Murder.–Exceptinthecaseshereinafterexcepted,
culpablehomicideismurder,iftheactbywhichthedeathis
causedisdonewiththeintentionofcausingdeath,or-
Secondly-Ifitisdonewiththeintentionofcausingsuch
bodilyinjuryastheoffenderknowstobelikelytocausethe
deathofthepersontowhomtheharmiscaused,or-Thirdly-
Ifitisdonewiththeintentionofcausingbodilyinjurytoany
personandthebodilyinjuryintendedtobeinflictedis
sufficientintheordinarycourseofnaturetocausedeath,or
committingtheactknowsthatitissoimminentlydangerous
thatitmust,inallprobability,causedeathorsuchbodily
injuryasislikelytocausedeath,or-

Fourthly-Ifthepersoncommittingtheactknowsthatitisso
imminentlydangerousthatitmust,inallprobability,cause
deathorsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelytocausedeath,and
commitssuchactwithoutanyexcuseforincurringtheriskof

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page13of26
causingdeathorsuchinjuryasaforesaid.

Exception1-Whenculpablehomicideisnotmurder-
Culpablehomicideisnotmurderiftheoffender,whilst
deprivedofthepowerofself-controlbygraveandsudden
provocation,causesthedeathofthepersonwhogavethe
provocationorcausesthedeathofanyotherpersonby
mistakeoraccident.

Theaboveexceptionissubjecttothefollowingprovisos:-
First-Thattheprovocationisnotsoughtorvoluntarily
provokedbytheoffenderasanexcuseforkillingordoing
harmtoanyperson.

Secondly-Thattheprovocationisnotgivenbyanythingdone
inobediencetothelaw,orbyapublicservantinthelawful
exerciseofthepowersofsuchpublicservant.
Thirdly-Thattheprovocationisnotgivenbyanythingdone
inthelawfulexerciseoftherightofprivatedefense.
Exception2-Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifthe
offender,intheexerciseingoodfaithoftherightofprivate
defenseofpersonorproperty,exceedsthepowergivento
himbylawandcausesthedeathofthepersonagainstwhom
heisexercisingsuchrightofdefensewithoutpremeditation,
andwithoutanyintentionofdoingmoreharmthanis
necessaryforthepurposeofsuchdefense.

Exception3-Culpablehomicideisnotmurderiftheoffender,
beingapublicservantoraiding.apublicservantactingfor
theadvancementofpublicjustice,exceedsthepowersgiven
tohimbylaw,andcausesdeathbydoinganactwhichhe,in
goodfaith,believestobelawfulandnecessaryforthedue
dischargeofhisdutyassuchpublicservantandwithoutill-
willtowardsthepersonwhosedeathiscaused.
Exception4.-Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifitis
committedwithoutpremeditationinasuddenfightintheheat
ofpassionuponasuddenquarrelandwithouttheoffender
havingtakenundueadvantageoractedinacruelorunusual
manner.

Exception5-Culpablehomicideisnotmurderwhenthe

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page14of26
personwhosedeathiscaused,beingabovetheageof
eighteenyears,suffersdeathortakestheriskofdeathwith
hisownconsent.

302.Punishmentformurder.–Whoevercommitsmurdershall
bepunishedwithdeath,or1[imprisonmentforlife],and
shallalsobeliabletofine.

Thecrimecommittedbytheappellantmaybesaidtohavebeen
committedwithoutpremeditationinasuddenfightintheheatof
passion.

[email protected]
(2004)12SCC269itwasheldthat:

All”murder”is”culpablehomicide”butnotviceversa.
Speakinggenerally,”culpablehomicide”sans”special
characteristicsofmurderisculpablehomicidenotamounting
tomurder”.Forthepurposeoffixingpunishment,
proportionatetothegravityofthegeneric
offence,SectionIPCpracticallyrecognizesthreedegreesofculpable
homicide.Thefirstis,whatmaybecalled,”culpable
homicideofthefirstdegree”.Thisisthegravestformof
culpablehomicide,whichisdefinedinSection300as
“murder”.Thesecondmaybetermedas”culpablehomicide
oftheseconddegree”.Thisispunishableunderthefirstpart
ofSection304.Then,thereis”culpablehomicideofthethird
degree”.Thisisthelowesttype

10.Theacademicofculpablehomicideandthepunishment
providedforitisalsothelowestamongthepunishments
providedforthethreegrades.Culpablehomicideofthis
degreeispunishableunderthesecondpartofSection304.
Distinctionbetween”murder”and”culpablehomicidenot
amountingtomurder”hasalwaysvexedthecourts.The
confusioniscaused,ifcourtslosingsightofthetruescope
andmeaningofthetermsusedbythelegislatureinthese
sections,allowthemselvestobedrawnintominute
abstractions.Thesafestwayofapproachtotheinterpretation
andapplicationoftheseprovisionsseemstobetokeepin
focusthekeywordsusedinthevariousclausesofSections

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page15of26
299and300.Thefollowingcomparativetablewillbehelpful
inappreciatingthepointsofdistinctionbetweenthetwo
offences:

1.Clause(b)ofSection299correspondswithClauses(2)
and(3)ofSection300.Thedistinguishingfeatureofthemens
rearequisiteunderClause(2)istheknowledgepossessedby
theoffenderregardingtheparticularvictimbeinginsucha
peculiarconditionorstateofhealththattheinternalharm
causedtohimislikelytobefatal,notwithstandingthefact
thatsuchharmwouldnotintheordinarywayofnaturebe
sufficienttocausedeathofapersoninnormalhealthor
condition.Itisnoteworthythatthe”intentiontocausedeath”
isnotanessentialrequirementofClause(2).Onlythe
intentionofcausingthebodilyinjurycoupledwiththe
offender’sknowledgeofthelikelihoodofsuchinjurycausing
thedeathoftheparticularvictimissufficienttobringthe
killingwithintheambitofthisclause.

2.Clause(b)ofSection299doesnotpostulateanysuch
knowledgeonthepartoftheoffender.Instancesofcases
fallingunderClause(2)ofSection300canbewherethe
assailantcausesdeathbyafist-blowintentionallygiven
knowingthatthevictimissufferingfromanenlargedliver,or
enlargedspleenordiseasedheartandsuchblowislikelyto
causedeathofthatparticularpersonasaresultofthe
ruptureoftheliver,orspleenorthefailureoftheheart,as
thecasemaybe.Iftheassailanthadnosuchknowledge
aboutthediseaseorspecialfrailtyofthevictim,noran
intentiontocausedeathorbodilyinjurysufficientinthe
ordinarycourseofnaturetocausedeath,theoffencewillnot
bemurder,eveniftheinjurywhichcausedthedeath,was
intentionallygiven.InClause(3)ofSection300,insteadof
thewords”likelytocausedeath”occurringinthe
correspondingClause(b)ofSection299,thewords
“sufficientintheordinarycourseofnature”havebeenused.
Obviously,thedistinctionliesbetweenabodilyinjurylikely
tocausedeathandabodilyinjurysufficientintheordinary
courseofnaturetocausedeath.Thedistinctionisfinebut
realandifoverlooked,mayresultinmiscarriageofjustice.

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page16of26

ThedifferencebetweenClause(b)ofSection299andClause
(3)ofSection300isoneofdegreeofprobabilityofdeath
resultingfromtheintendedbodilyinjury.Toputitmore
broadly,itisthedegreeofprobabilityofdeathwhich
determineswhetheraculpablehomicideisofthegravest,
mediumorthelowestdegree.Theword”likely”inClause

(b)ofSection299conveysthesenseofprobabilityas
distinguishedfromamerepossibility.Thewords”bodily
injury…sufficientintheordinarycourseofnaturetocause
death”meanthatdeathwillbethe”mostprobable”resultof
theinjury,havingregardtotheordinarycourseofnature.

38.ForcasestofallunderClause(3)itisnotnecessarythatthe
offenderintendedtocausedeathsolongasthedeathensuesfrom
theintentionalbodilyinjuryorinjuriessufficienttocausedeathin
theordinarycourseofnature.RajwantSinghv.StateofKerala
AIR1966SC1874isanaptillustrationofthispoint.SectionInVirsa
Singhv.StateofPunjab1958CriLJ818VivianBose,J.speaking
fortheCourt,explainedthemeaningandscopeofClause(3).It
wasobservedthattheprosecutionmustprovethefollowingfacts
beforeitcanbringacaseunderSection300″thirdly”.First,it
mustestablishquiteobjectively,thatabodilyinjuryispresent;
secondly,thenatureoftheinjurymustbeproved.Thesearepurely
objectiveinvestigations.Thirdly,itmustbeprovedthattherewas
anintentiontoinflictthatparticularinjury,thatistosay,thatit
wasnotaccidentalorunintentionalorthatsomeotherkindof
injurywasintended.Oncethesethreeelementsareprovedtobe
present,theenquiryproceedsfurther,andfourthly,itmustbe
provedthattheinjuryofthetypejustdescribedmadeupofthe
threeelementssetoutabovewassufficienttocausedeathinthe
ordinarycourseofnature.Thispartoftheenquiryispurely
objectiveandinferentialandhasnothingtodowiththeintention
oftheoffender.

39.InShivKumarVs.State(NCT)ofDelhi2014(2)JCC1282,it
washeldthatindealingwithException4toSectionsection300in
MaheshBalmikiversusStateofMadhyaPradesh,(2000)1SCC
310,ithasbeenobserved:-

“7.NowException4toSection300IPCisinthefollowing

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page17of26
terms:

Exception4.–Culpablehomicideisnotmurderifitis
committedwithoutpremeditationinasuddenfightintheheat
ofpassionuponasuddenquarrelandwithouttheoffender’s
havingtakenundueadvantageoractedinacruelorunusual
manner.

Explanation.–Itisimmaterialinsuchcaseswhichparty
offerstheprovocationorcommitsthefirstassault.The
requirementsofthisexceptionare:

(a)withoutpremeditationinasuddenfight;

(b)intheheatofpassionuponasuddenquarrel;

(c)theoffenderhasnottakenundueadvantage;and

(d)theoffenderhasnotactedinacruelorunusual
manner.

Wheretheserequirementsaresatisfied,culpablehomicide
wouldnotbemurder.”

40.Intheinstantcasealltherequirementsoftheexceptionare
met.Astowhethertheoffenderhasnotactedinacruelorunusual
manner,wemustconsidertheactionsoftheappellantbeforeand
afterthecrime.Thecrimeitselfmaybesaidtohavebeen
committedsuddenlyintheheatofthemoment,buthisactof
fleeingimmediatelyaftercommittingtheoffenceandlater
informingthepoliceandrequestingthemtosendanambulanceto
thelocationmustbeconsidered.Nothingunusualcanbefoundin
hisactions,therewasnopremeditation,andhecannotbesaidto
havetakenundueadvantage.VideAnkushShivajiGaikwadVs.
StateofMaharashtraAIR2013SC2454:2013CriJ3044.

41.SectionInGhapooYadavandOrs.v.StateofM.P.(2003)3SCC528
andSukbhirSinghv.StateofHaryana(2002)3SCC327,itwas
seenthat:

…Aftertheinjurieswereinflictedtheinjuredhasfallendown,
butthereisnomaterialtoshowthatthereafteranyinjury
wasinflictedwhenhewasinahelplesscondition.The
assaultsweremadeatrandom.Eventheprevious
altercationswereverbalandnotphysical.Itisnotthecaseof

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page18of26
theprosecutionthattheaccusedAppellantshadcome
preparedandarmedforattackingthedeceased….Thisgoes
toshowthatintheheatofpassionuponasuddenquarrel
followedbyafighttheaccusedpersonshadcausedinjuries
onthedeceased,buthadnotactedincruelorunusual
manner.Thatbeingso,Exception4toSection300Indian
PenalCodeisclearlyapplicable…

Thuswemaysaythattheoffenceisnotmurder,butculpable
homicidenotamountingtomurderasunderSectionsection304.

42.Section304oftheIPCisasunder:

304.Punishmentforculpablehomicidenotamountingto
murder.–Whoevercommitsculpablehomicidenotamounting
tomurdershallbepunishedwith1[imprisonmentforlife],or
imprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhichmay
extendtotenyears,andshallalsobeliabletofine,iftheact
bywhichthedeathiscausedisdonewiththeintentionof
causingdeath,orofcausingsuchbodilyinjuryasislikelyto
causedeath,orwithimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionfora
termwhichmayextendtotenyears,orwithfine,orwith
both,iftheactisdonewiththeknowledgethatitislikelyto
causedeath,butwithoutanyintentiontocausedeath,orto
causesuchbodilyinjuryasislikelytocausedeath.
Section304consistsoftwoparts,thefirstdealingwithsecond
degreeculpablehomicideandtheseconddealingwiththird
degreeculpablehomicideashasbeennotedabove.Thedistinction
between304PartIandPartIIhasbeendrawnbytheHon’ble
SupremeCourtinSectionAlisterAnthonyPareirav.Stateof
Maharashtra(2012)2SCC648,inthefollowingwords:
…..ForpunishmentUnderSection304PartI,the
prosecutionmustprove:thedeathofthepersoninquestion;
thatsuchdeathwascausedbytheactoftheaccusedandthat
theaccusedintendedbysuchacttocausedeathorcause
suchbodilyinjuryaswaslikelytocausedeath.Asregards
punishmentforSection304PartII,theprosecutionhasto
provethedeathofthepersoninquestion;thatsuchdeath
wascausedbytheactoftheaccusedandthatheknewthat

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page19of26
suchactofhiswaslikelytocausedeath….

43.SectionInVijayRamkrishanGaikwasV.StateofMaharashtra(2012)
11SCC592,itwasobservedthat….

Theoccurrencethushasthefeaturesofanincidentinwhich
aninjuryisinflictedinasuddenfightwithoutpre-meditation
intheheatofpassionuponasuddenquarrelwithinthe
contemplationofexception4toSection300oftheIndian
PenalCode,whichtakesthecaseoutofthepurviewof
murderasdefinedinthesaidsection.Itistruethatonlyone
injurywascausedtothedeceasedbutthesameisnot
conclusivebyitself,forevenasingleinjurycaninagiven
caseconstitutemurder,havingregardtotheweaponused
andthepartofthebodychosenforinflictingtheinjury.The
legalpositioninthisregardiswellsettledbythedecisionof
thisCourtinBavisettiKameshwaraRaoaliasSectionBabaiv.State
ofAndhraPradesh:2008(15)SCC725:

(Para13)Itisseenthatwhereinthemurdercasethereonly
asingleinjuryis,thereisalwaysatendencytoadvancean
argumentthattheoffencewouldinvariablybecovered
underSection304PanIIIndianPenalCode.Thenatureof
offencewherethereisasingleinjurycouldnotbedecided
merelyonthebasisofthesingleinjuryandthusina
mechanicalfashion.Thenatureoftheoffencewouldcertainly
dependupontheotherattendantcircumstanceswhichwould
helpthecourttofindoutdefinitelyabouttheintentiononthe
partoftheaccused.Suchattendantcircumstancescouldbe
verymany,theybeing(i)whethertheactwaspremeditated;

(ii)thenatureofweaponused;(iii)thenatureofassaulton
theaccused.Thisiscertainlynotanexhaustivelistandevery
casehastonecessarilydependupontheevidenceavailable.
Asregardstheuserofscrewdriver,theLearnedCounsel
urgedthatitwasonlyanaccidentaluseonthespurofthe
momentand,therefore,therecouldbenointentiontoeither
causedeathorcausesuchbodilyinjuryaswouldbe
sufficienttocausedeath.Merelybecausethescrewdriverwas
ausualtoolusedbytheaccusedinhisbusiness,itcouldnot
beasifitsuserwouldbeinnocuous.‖

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page20of26

15.Subsequently,anotherCoordinateBenchofthisCourtinAjayBind
Vs.StateNCTofDelhi;2017SCCOnLineDel0933hasheldthatwhere
onasuddenquarrel,apersonintheheatofthemomentpicksupaweapon
whichishandyandcausesinjuries,oneofwhichprovesfatal,hewouldbe
entitledtothebenefitofthisexceptionprovidedhehasnotactedcruelly.
Therelevantportionofthesaidjudgmentisreproducedhereinbelow:-

―57.Inthisregard,wemayalsorefertothepronouncementofthe
[email protected]
Reddyv.StateofA.P.,(2006)11SCC444whereinitwasheldas
follows:

―29.Therefore,thecourtshouldproceedtodecidethe
pivotalquestionofintention,withcareandcaution,asthat
willdecidewhetherthecasefallsunderSection302or304
PartIor304PartII.Manypettyorinsignificantmatters–
pluckingofafruit,strayingofcattle,quarrelofchildren,
utteranceofarudewordorevenanobjectionableglance,
mayleadtoaltercationsandgroupclashesculminatingin
deaths.Usualmotiveslikerevenge,greed,jealousyor
suspicionmaybetotallyabsentinsuchcases.Theremaybe
nointention.Theremaybenopremeditation.Infact,there
maynotevenbecriminality.Attheotherendofthespectrum,
theremaybecasesofmurderwheretheaccusedattemptsto
avoidthepenaltyformurderbyattemptingtoputforthacase
thattherewasnointentiontocausedeath.Itisforthecourts
toensurethatthecasesofmurderpunishableunderSection
302,arenotconvertedintooffencespunishableunderSection
304PartI/II,orcasesofculpablehomicidenotamountingto
murder,aretreatedasmurderpunishableunderSection302.
Theintentiontocausedeathcanbegatheredgenerallyfrom
acombinationofafeworseveralofthefollowing,among
other,circumstances:(i)natureoftheweaponused;(ii)
whethertheweaponwascarriedbytheaccusedorwas
pickedupfromthespot;(iii)whethertheblowisaimedata
vitalpartofthebody;(iv)theamountofforceemployedin

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page21of26
causinginjury;(v)whethertheactwasinthecourseof
suddenquarrelorsuddenfightorfreeforallfight;(vi)
whethertheincidentoccursbychanceorwhethertherewas
anypremeditation;(vii)whethertherewasanypriorenmity
orwhetherthedeceasedwasastranger;(viii)whetherthere
wasanygraveandsuddenprovocation,andifso,thecause
forsuchprovocation;(ix)whetheritwasintheheatof
passion;(x)whetherthepersoninflictingtheinjuryhastaken
undueadvantageorhasactedinacruelandunusual
manner;(xi)whethertheaccuseddealtasingleblowor
severalblows.Theabovelistofcircumstancesis,ofcourse,
notexhaustiveandtheremaybeseveralotherspecial
circumstanceswithreferencetoindividualcaseswhichmay
throwlightonthequestionofintention.Bethatasitmay.‖

58.Inthisregard,referencemayalsousefullybemadetoa
pronouncementoftheSupremeCourtreportedat(1997)2Crimes
185(Mad.),[email protected]
Naduwhereinitwasheldasfollows:

―ToinvokeException4toSection300,fourrequirements
mustbesatisfied,namely(i)itwasasuddenfight,(ii)thereis
nopremeditation;(iii)theactwasdoneinaheatofpassion;
and(iv)theassailanthadnottakenanyundueadvantageor
actedinacruelmanner….Thenumberofwoundscaused
duringtheoccurrenceisnotadecisivefactorbutwhatis
importantisthattheoccurrencemusthavebeensuddenand
unpremeditatedandtheoffendermusthaveactedinafitof
anger.Ofcourse,theoffendermustnothavetakenanyundue
advantageoractedinacruelmanner.Where,onasudden
quarrel,apersonintheheatofthemomentpicksupa
weaponwhichishandyandcausesinjuries,oneofwhich
provesfatal,hewouldbeentitledtothebenefitofthis
Exceptionprovidedhehasnotactedcruelly;‖

(Emphasissupplied)

59.Theevidenceextractedaboveshowsthattheweaponswerenot
carriedbytheappellantsbutwerepickedupfromthespot.The
actswereinthecourseofasuddenquarrelandtheincident

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page22of26
occurredbychancewithoutanypre-meditation.Thereisno
evidenceatallofpreviousenmity.Onthecontrary,thedeceased
wasastrangertotheappellantswhowasvisitingthematrimonial
homeofhisdaughterinthevicinitywherethequarreltookplace.
Theincidentwasaresultoftheappellantsgettingprovokedandin
aheatofpassion.

60.Infact,theappellantswerequarrellingamongstthemselves
anditwasthedeceasedandhisfamilywhocameoutoftheirhome
tointerveneresultinginthequarrel.

xxxxxxxxx

63.Thustempersoftheappellantswerealreadyrunninghigh.The
evidenceofRampal(PW-6)isthattheappellantswerequarrelling
undertheinfluenceofalcohol.Theinterventionbythedeceasedto
loudlycommandtheappellantstokeepquietresultedinthe
attentionandilltemperbecomingdirectedtowardsthedeceased.
ItwasinthisatmosphereofheightenedtemperthatAjayBind
pickedupthehammerlyingatthespot.Theothertwopickedup
thedandaandthesarialyingthereitself.Noneoftheseare
dangerousweaponsbutordinarytoolslyingonthespotwhich
cametobeusedasweapons.Clearly,theevidenceestablishesthat
therewasnopre-meditationandthattheviolencewasaresultof
suddenprovocationinanongoingfightbetweentheappellants
fromastranger(thedeceased).

xxxxxxxxx

67.Therefore,theconvictionoftheappellantsvideimpugned
judgmentdated22ndMarch,2016andsentencevideimpugned
orderdated29thMarch,2016bytheld.AdditionalSessionsJudge-
05(West),TisHazariCourts,DelhiinSessionsCaseNo.44/15
arisingoutofFIRNo.291/2011registeredatP.S.NihalVihar
underSections323/Section302/Section34/Section174AoftheIPCismodifiedtoone
underSection304PartIIoftheIndianPenalCode,1860.‖

16.ThisCourthasgonethroughtheevidenceonrecordandisoftheview
thatappellantistheperpetratorwhohadcausedstabinjuryresultingindeath

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page23of26
ofRajKumar.However,therewasnointentiontocausedeathastherewas
asuddenandinstantaneousaltercationbetweentheappellantanddeceased,
whiletheywereconsumingliquor,ontheissueofillicitrelationship
betweenthedeceasedandwifeofappellantwhichledtorisingoftemper
andintheheatofthemomenttheappellantinflictedasingleblowuponthe
deceasedinthelowerabdomenwithasmallvegetableknifeandalsotohis
wifeintheabdomen.

17.Lackofintentiononthepartoftheappellantisapparentfromthe
factsthattheknifewasnotprocuredbytheappellantpriortothealtercation
andtheappellanthadinflictedasingleblowonthebodyofthedeceasedand
hiswifeunderintoxication.

18.ThisCourtisoftheopinionthatSectionKikarSinghvs.StateofRajasthan
(supra)isclearlydistinguishableonfactsinasmuchastheappellantherein
didnotuseadeadlyweaponandappellantdidnotactcruellyanddidnot
takeundueadvantage.Theappellantinthepresentcasegaveoneblowonly,
unlikeinSectionKikarSinghvs.StateofRajasthan(supra)wheretheaccusedgave
threeblowsandthattoowhenthedeceasedhadfallenontheground.

19.However,thisCourtisoftheviewthattheappellanthadknowledge
thataknifeinjuryascausedbyhimwassufficienttocausedeathinthe
normalcourseofevents.Dr.ManojNagpal,DDUHospitalwhodeposedas
PW-10hasconfirmedthesaidfact.TherelevantportionofPW-10’s
depositionisreproducedhereinbelow:-

―On24.9.2001,Ihadconductedthepostmortemonthedeadbody
ofRajkumarS/oSoniLalage30years.OnexaminationIfound
thefollowinginjuriesonthedeadbodyofRajkumar:

1.Penetratingwoundpresentontheabdomen2Cm.lateraltoleft
sideofumbilicusand13Cm.aboveCubicsynphysismeasuring

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page24of26
1.5×2.5Cm.Cleancutwelldefinedboardersandspindleshape.
Theinjuriescrossedtheabdominalmusclesandpiercingthesmall
intestinesattwoplacesthroughandthrough.Inthecourseof
penetrationtheinjuryalsopiercedthemesentry.

2.Bruise2x.8Cm.15Cm.totherightofumbilicusand6Cm.
belowcoastalmargin.

Injuryno.1issufficienttocausedeathinnormalcourseof
events…..‖
(emphasissupplied)

20.Keepinginviewtheaforesaidmandateoflawaswellasthefactual
findings,thisCourtisoftheviewthatappellantisentitledtobenefitof
Exception4toSection300IPCandconsequently,isconvictedunder
Section304Part-IIIPC.

21.ThisCourtisoftheviewthatendsofjusticewouldbemetifthe
sentenceoftheappellantisreducedtosevenyearsrigorousimprisonment.
Accordingly,appellantissentencedtosevenyearsrigorousimprisonment
underSection304Part-IIIPC.Sentenceoffinestandsunaltered.

22.Itisfurtherobservedthatasperevidenceonrecordappellanthas
givenstabinjurytohiswifeandhisconvictionunderSection307IPCis
upheld.However,lookingintothefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,the
sentenceunderSection307IPCisalsoreducedtosevenyearsrigorous
imprisonment,whilemaintainingthefineimposedbythelearnedTrial
Court.

23.Atthisstage,learnedcounselfortheappellantpraysforsometimeto
surrenderbeforetheTrialCourt.Theappellantispermittedtosurrender
beforetheTrialCourtwithinfourweekstoserveouttheremainderofhis
sentence.BoththesentencesshallrunconcurrentlyandbenefitofSection
428Cr.P.C.standsgranted.

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page25of26

24.Withtheaforesaiddirections,presentappealstandsdisposedof.Copy
ofjudgmentbesenttoTrialCourtforcompliance.Copyofjudgmentbe
alsogivendastitotheappellant.

MANMOHAN,J

SANGITADHINGRASEHGAL,J
MAY09,2019
KA

Crl.A.No.589/2004Page26of26

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation