GURMUKH SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 548

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

Case summary

GURMUKH SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 13 (ADDL. ) S. C. R. 548 GURMUKH SINGH \ . -, v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1609 of 2009) AUGUST 25, 2009 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ. ] ,.. Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 304 (Part-II) - Murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Punishment for - Accused inflicting single fatal blow on the head of deceased - Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by courts below - Justification of - Held: Occurrence took place at the spur of the moment - Other co-accused did not indulge in any overt act - No intention or pre-meditation in mind of accused -t to inflict such injuries to deceased as were likely to cause death in ordinary course of nature - Thus, conviction and sentence of accused converted from s. 302 to s. 304 (Part II) and imposed rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The question which arose for consideration in t~is appeal was whether on consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant u/s.

302 IPC by courts below is justified or should be converted to one u/s. 304 (Part II) IPC. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Appropriate sentencing is a very vital function and obligation of the court. Ther~ are significant features of the case which are required to be taken into consideration in awarding the appropriate sentence to the accused. The occurrence took place at the spur of the moment Only the appellant inflicted a single lathi blow to the deceased which proved fatal. The other accused did not indulge in any overt act There was no intention or pre-meditation in the mind of the appellant to inflict such injuries to the deceased as were likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The incident took place on 8. 1. 1997 and the deceased remained hospitalized and ultimately died six days later. Trial court observed that there was no previous enmity between the parties.

On consideration of the entire evidence including the medical evidence, the conviction of the appellant cannot be··sustained u/s. 302 IPC, but the appropriate section under which the appellant ought to be convicted is s. 304 (Part II) IPC. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is converted from s. 302 IPC to one u/s. 304 (Part II) IPC and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The fine as imposed by the trial court and as upheld by the High Court is maintained. The appellant 0 would be entitled to get benefit of s. 428 Cr. P. C. [Paras 21, 22 and 25] [559-A, B; C-D; 561-8-C] Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana (1981) 3 SCC 616; Gurmail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 185; Ku/want Rai v. State of Punjab (1981) 4 SCC 245; Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342; Hem Raj v. State (Delhi Administration) (1990) Supp. SCC 291; Abani K. Debnath and Anr. v. State of Tripura (2005) 13 SCC 422; Pappu v. State of M. P. (2006) 7 SCC 391, referred to. 2.

It is not laid down that in no case of single blow or injury, the accused cannot be convicted u/s. 302 IPC. In cases of single injury, the facts and circumstances of each ,case has to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the accused should be appropriately convicted u/s. 302 IPC or u/s. 304 (Part JI) IPC. There are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective. "Q! e proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence.

The relevant factors are as under: Motive or previous enmity; whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; the intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or tnjury; whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; the gravity, dimension and nature of injury; the age and general health condition of the accused; whether the injury was caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight; the nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; 0 the criminal background and adverse history of the accused; whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient .

( in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; incident occurred within the family members or close relations; the conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident; and whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment. (Paras 23 and 24) (559-D-H; 560-A-F] ·Case Law Reference: (1981) 3 sec 616 Referred to. Para 14 (1982) 3 sec 1s5 Referred to. Para 15 (1981) 4 sec 245 Referred to. Para 16 (1983) 2 sec 342 Referred to. Para 17 (1990) Supp. SCC 291 Referred to. Para 18 (2005) 13 sec 422 Referred to. Para 19 (2006) 1 sec 391 Referred to. Para 20 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1609 of 2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 04. 04. 2008 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No. 163-DB of 1999. Jaspreet Gogia for the Appellant.

Manjit Singh AAG, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 4. 4. 2008 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 163-DB of 1999. 3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are in n'utshell as under:- The appellant Gurmukh Singh in this appeal has challenged his conviction and sentence for the murder of Hazoor Singh. 4. According to the prosecution version, on 8. 1. 1997 in the morning, deceased Hazoor Singh had borrowed the tractor of Lal Singh and tiller of Gurbachan Singh. Gurmej Singh P. W. 5, son of Hazoor Singh (deceased) was going along with Lal Singh to return the tractor at the Dera of Gurbachan Singh.

On ""' - - )r which the appellant caused a solitary injury, he could not be imputed with the intention to cause death of the deceased or with the intention to cause that particular fatal injury; but he could be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause death. Because in the absence of any positive proof that .... ;, the appellant caused the death of the deceased with the intention of causing death or intentionally inflicted that particular injury which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death, neither Clause I nor Clause Ill of n Section 300 IPC will be attracted...... This Court while setting aside the conviction under section 302 convicted the accused under section 304 Part II and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 19. In Abani K. Debnath & Another v.

State of Tripura (2005) 13 sec 422, this Court, in somewhat similar circumstances, while converting the sentence from section 302 IPC to one under section 304 Part II IPC observed as under: "This leads us to consider as to under what Section of law A-1 Abani K. Debnath is liable to be convicted in --'· given facts of the case. The prosecution evidence clearly discloses that the dao blow dealt by A-1 is preceded by a mutual quarrel. We have already noted that there was no common intention to kill Ranjit Das. From the nature of injuries it is disclosed that A-1 dealt only one dao blow perhaps in the sput of moment. The incident had taken place on 10. 8. 1990 and the deceased succumbed to injury . on 15. 8. 1990 after a lapse of 7 days. Taking the ~ prosecution evidence and medical evidence cumulatively we are of the view that the conviction of A-1 also cannot fall under Section 34 IPC but at the most under Section 304 Part II. We accordingly convert the sentence of A-1 Abani K.

Debnath under Section 34 IPC to that one under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to suffer R. I. for five years. The fine amount imposed by the trial court and Page 2091 affirmed by the High Court is maintained. It is ... ~ stated at the Bar that A-1 has undergooe about 18 months' imprisonment, if that is so, he will be entitled to get the benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. " 20. In another case Pappu v. State of M. P. (2006) 7 sec ,,. ~ 391, this Court observed as under: "...... The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is ' caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have bee~ with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight.

Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, . the parties have worked themse\ves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair ~ advantage'. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever one blow is given, Section 302 IPC is ruled out.

It would depend upon the weapon used, the size of it in some cases, force with which the blow was given, part of the body it ". Vas given and several such relevant factors. )- ~ Considering the factual background in the case at hand it will be appropriate to convict the appellant under Section 304Part11 IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC as has been done by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. Custodial sentence of eight years would meet the ends of justice. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. " 21. In the instant case, the occurrence had taken place at the spur of the moment. Only the appellant Gurmukh Singh 8 inflicted a single lathi blow. The other accused have not indulged in any overt act. There was no intention or pre-meditation in the mind of the appellant to inflict such injuries to the deceased as were likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 22.

On consideration of the entire evidence including the medical evidence, we are clearly of the view that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained under section 302 IPC, but the appropriate section under which the appellant ought to be convicted is section 304 Part II iPC. 23. Before we part with the case, we would like to clearly observe that we are not laying down that in no case of single blow or injury, the accused cannot be convicted under section 302 IPC. In cases of single injury, the facts and circumstances of each case has to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the accused should be appropriately convicted under section 302 IPC or under section 304 Part II IPC. 24. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen from its special perspective.

The relevant factors are as under: (a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the ,,. victim died after several days; ~ (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The age and general health condition of the accused; (g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight; ..

(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (i) ·The criminal b_ackground and adverse history of the accused; 0) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (I) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations; ~ (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment? These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only ~ . ,, illustrative and not exhaμstive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court.

The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the '-.. • gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused. 25. When we apply the settled principle of law which has 8 been enumerated in the aforementioned cases, the conviction of the appellant under section 302 l. P. C. cannot be sustained. In our considered view, the accused appellant ought to have been convicted under section 304Part111. P. C. instead of under section 302 l. P. C. 26. We accordingly convert the conviction and sentence of the appellant Gurmukh Singh from section 302 IPC to one under section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The fine as imposed by the trial court and as upheld by the High Court is maintained.

The appellant would be entitled to get benefit of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 27. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforementioned terms and disposed of. N. J. Appeal partly allowed. 4 ...... -