Holding

The appellant’s act amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC; the claim of self‑defence was untenable and the conviction was correctly upheld.

Summary

The dispute arose when Hukam Chand's brother Udai Chand and his sibling went to a wheat‑threshing field and a quarrel broke out over a khes. Hukam Chand arrived armed with a pharsa (a deadly weapon) and struck Udai Chand on the head, causing fatal injuries; other parties also inflicted blows with lathi and ballam. The trial court convicted Hukam Chand under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC, a decision affirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the accused claimed self‑defence and argued that the charge should be reduced to Section 304(1) IPC. The Supreme Court held that the injury report showed no serious harm to the accused, the pharsa was a deadly weapon, and the blow was sufficient to cause death, negating any claim of self‑defence or aggression. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the accused can successfully invoke the right of self‑defence.
Whether the offence should be constituted as murder under Section 302 IPC or as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(1) IPC.
Whether the theory of aggression by the complainant is tenable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304 Part I, s. 304 Part II, s. 323

Subjects

murderself-defenceaggressiondeadly weaponIPC Section 302culpable homicideSupreme Court of India

Judgment

A HUKAM CHAND
v.
STATE OF HARYANA

OCTOBER 23, 2902

B [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302, 304 Part II & 323:

Murder-Right to se/fdefence--He/d, since injury received by the accused
C persons is not serious, it negates the aggression theory-Hence right of self
defence not available-Accused inflicted injury on the deceased by deadly
weapon and the severity of blow was sufficient for causing his death-Hence
Section 302 rightly invoked and not Section 304 Part JI.

D On the fateful day, PW12 and his brother went to the field for
thrashing wheat. Members of accused party picked up 'khes' belonging
to PW12 without his consent and when he asked to return the khes there
started some altercation between the two groups. Accused persons called
their relative, accused-appellant, for help, who arrived armed with deadly
weapon, a Pharsa, and inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased who
E fell down, Other accused persons inflicted lathi and Ballam blow on PWl2.
Injured were shifted to hospital where one of them, brother of PW12, died.
Post-mortem was conducted. Medical Officer opined that the injury
inflicted on the head of the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature.

F Trial Court convicted accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 323
IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. High Court affirmed the
conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal.

On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the injuries inflicted
G on the deceased by the accused-appellant was in self defence; and that the
conviction should have been under Section 304 Part I and not under
Section 302 IPC.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. A bare perusal of the injury report of accused-appellant,
H 202
·I

HUKAM CHAND v. ST ATE OF HAR YANA [BANERJEE, J.) 203
as a matter of fact, negates the theory of aggression, as introduced by the A
defence. No serious injuries have been shown to have been received by
any of the accused persons and the pretended explanation as set up under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased received the fatal blow on his head
from his own arms cannot but be termed to be otherwise not creditworthy
neither acceptable. 1207-D-EI
B
2. Though there was only one blow but the medical evidence on
record definitely indicates that the severity of the blow was such that it
was sufficient for causing death. Accused-appellant was in the house. He
was called in and he arrived at the scene and place of occurrence with a
Pharsa which by all means is a deadly weapon and it is this Pharsa which C
was used to hit the deceased at his head resulting in his immediate collapse
and subsequent death. The factum of bringing in the Pharsa at the place
of occurrence by accused from his house cannot be ignored. It definitely
indicates the intent to use it and thereby cause death. Hence the accused
was rightly convicted under Section 302 and ·not under Section 304 Part
II. 1208-E, F, G, H; 209-A-DI D
Pularu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1993) SC 1487,
distinguished.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
147 of 2002. E
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.2001 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 832 DB of 1997.

Shiva Pujan Singh, Mrs. Nidhi Pandey and R.P. Khatana for the
Appellant. F
J.P. Dhanda, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda, K.P. Singh and D.S. Nagar, for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BANERJEE, J. The appellant by the grant of special leave of this G
Court is in appeal from the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
affirming conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence to
undergo imprisonment for life and further to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000. The
appellant has further been convicted under Section 323 !PC and sentenced to
imprisonment of six months and both the sentences, however, were directed H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A to be concurrent.
Two principal issues stand canvassed for consideration in the appeal.
Firstly, the order of conviction as confirmed by the High Court remains
wholly unwarranted, since injuries inflicted on the deceased cannot but be
termed to be in self-defence and secondly having credence on the entire
B prosecution story at the most the conviction should have been under Section
304 Part I and not under Section 302 IPC on the state cif evidence available
on record.

It is at this juncture, certain factual backdrop ought to be noticed. On
C 6th May, 1989, around 7.00 in the morning, PW.12 Kishori Lal son of Devi
Sahai and his brother Udai Chand (since deceased) went to the fields of
Chatur Bhuj, where a wheat thrasher had been installed for thrashing the
wheat. A cart belonging to Kishori Lal was standing nearby from where
Mani Ram and Tuhia @ Varinder picked up a Khes and started filling the
fodder in the tractor trolley by laying the fodder on Khes. The complainant
D side asked them to return the Khes and there was by reason whereof some
altercation between the two groups : whilst altercations, however, were on,
Mani Ram asked his son Tuhia to inform his uncle so that he can come to
lend support to Mani Ram's group. It is in pursuance of such a call that
Hukam Chand arrived but armed with a Pharsa and it is this Pharsa by which
E Hukam Chand did inflict a blow on the head of Udai Chand and the latter
on receipt of the same fell down. Whereas Mani Ram gave a Lathi blow on
the head of Kishori Lal, Tuhia being the son of Mani Ram inflicted a Ballam
blow on the right shoulder of Kishori Lal. The latter was also given a Ballam
blow by Dayawati, wife of Hukam Chand and it is on the hue and cry that
some other persons arrived on the spot and Udai Chand was removed to the
F Government Hospital, Mandkola and subsequently to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad
and then to Safdajung Hospital in New Delhi.

The factual score further depicts that the Primary Health Centre sent a
Ruqa to the local police station and AS!, Rajinder Singh, upon a visit to the
village Mandkola, came to know that the injured had been admitted in B.K.
G Hospital, Faridabad and subsequently to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on
9.5.1989. The condition of Udai Chand, however, was rather serious, by
reason wherefor no statement could be obtained but Kishori Lal's statement
was recorded (Ex.PL). Subsequently, Udai Chand died on 12th May, 1989.
Dr. A.K. Sharma (PW.2) conducted the post-mortem on the body of the
H deceased Udai Chand on 13.5.1989 and found a stitched wound of the length

..
HUKAM CHAND v. STATE OF HARY ANA [BANERJEE, J.) 205

of 15 cm with 12 stitches placed anterio posteriorly above the middle of the A
--l
head. Its anterior and being 6 cm above the root of the nose and posterior end
was also 6 cm above the occipital protuberance. On opening the stitches, it
was bone deep, margins were clean cut. The doctor also found that effusion
of blood was present in whole of the scalp region. Cut fracture of the skull
was present in the middle of the frontal bone and continued backwards all B
along the saggital suture, its anterior and continued in the floor of the skull
in the right side of the anterior cranial fossa. It encloses two small depressed
fractures one at the middle level of saggital suture as shown in the post
mortem report and another just at the anterior end of the saggital suture.
Anterior end of the cut fracture in the frontal bone also encloses small
depressed fracture. Duramatter was cut anterio posteriorly just underneath C
the cut fracture. Extra dural haemotoma 0.3 cm in thickness and 3 cm of
width present all along with underneath the cut fracture. Thick subdural and
patchy sub arachnoid haemorrhage present all over the both cerebral hemi
sphere. Contusion laceration present along the inner margins of the anterior
half of both the cerebral hemi sphere.
D
In the opinion of the doctor the death was due to cranio-cerebral damage
consequent upon being hit on the head by a heavy sharp cutting weapon and
injury No. I was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Records depict that apart from the injury inflicted on to the deceased
Udai Chand, Kishori Lal on the complainant side also suffered some injuries E
and Dr. A. Ahmad, PW. I medico legally examined Kishori Lal, PW.12 on
6.5.1989 at about 9.45 a.m. and found the following injuries on his person:-

I. Lacerated wound 4 cm x0.4 cm x 0.3 cm on the middle of scalp,
I 0 cm above from occipital protuberance. There was slight
bleeding. F
2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.4 x 0.3 cm, 0.7 cm from injury No. I
towards left side. There was slight bleeding.
3. Superficial abrasion 7 cm on the right arm anterio laterally.
4. Superficial abrasion 3.5 cm on the middle of back of right fore- G
arm.
5. Superficial abrasion I cm x 1 cm on the back of left elbow.

All the injuries in the opinion of the doctor were simple in nature
caused by blunt weapon. H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A It has also come in evidence that both Hukam Chand and Baljit, being
accused persons also suffered some injuries, whereas Hukam Chand's injury
is a lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the back of left side of scalp,
5 cm above left to occipital protuberance and X-ray was advised. Baljit being
the other accused person was found to have suffered the following injuries
B on his person :

(1) Lacerated wound 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm on the right side of
scalp 7 cm above pinna of right ear. Wound was surrounded by
contusion. Slight bleeding was present.·

(2) Superficial abrasion 8 cm on the right shoulder. Both the injuries
c were simple in nature caused by blunt weapon. Ex.DB is the
copy of the medico legal report.

Incidentally, all the weapons, namely, Lathi, Pharsa and Ballam with
blood-stained marks thereon were duly recovered at the instance of the accused
D persons. Presently, we are concerned with the appellant only and as such
evidence pertaining to the involvement of the accused is required to be seen
and considered.

Hukam Chand at the trial stated in his statement under Section 313 as
below:
E
· "I am innocent. My co-accused Mani Ram has filed a cross-case,
which is pending in the court of JMIC, Palwal, wherein, our complete·
version has been given and Devi Sahai and Kishori PW have been
summoned a~ accused. Harchandi, my uncle is a bachelor and he
resides with us and is very much attached with Tuhia co-accused and
F treats him as his son. The complainant party i.e. Devi Sahai and his
sons are jealous of Tuhia and are always looking out to give beating
to Tuhia and his father, and his father Mani Ram on 6.5.1989 my co-
accused Mani Ram and his son Tuhia went to the field of Chattarbhuj
PW where we have stored our fodder, with a tractor trolley and had
started putting fodder on the Khes, belonging to us which was in our
G
trolley. Devi Sahai, Kishori PWs and Udai Chand reacl;ied near the
field of Chatterbhuj with a bhansa buggi and snatched/pulled the
Khes from our trolley and on being confronted by Mani Ram they
gave beating to Mani Ram·and Tuhia on which Tuhia slipped away
with our tractor and informed me and my brother Baljit about the
H same on which I along with my brother Baljit went to the field of
HUKAM CHAND v. STA TE OF HARY ANA [BANERJEE. J.] 207

Chattarbhuj with Tuhia on tractor but unarmed and on reaching there A
asked the complainant party i.e. Devi Sahai, Kishori to return the
Khes but Udai Chand armed with a Pharsa, Kishori armed with a
ballam and Devi Sahai armed with lathi opened attack on us. Kishori
PW gave injuries to Tuhia by Ballam lathiwise. Devi Sahai .PW gave
injuries to Baljit with his lathi and Udai Chand armed Pharsa and B
gave Pharsa blow on my head with blunt side and when Udai Chand
wanted to hit a second blow of pharsa to me I grappled with Udai
Chand in order to disarm and in that process Udai Chand received
injury on his head. The occurrence was witnessed by Hari Chand and
Kishan sons of Ramji Lal. Charanjit son of Man Singh and Kanwar
Pal son of Chattarbhuj who intervened and separated us. l and my co C
accused were medically examined by Dr. Krishan Kumar and Dr. A.
Ahmad, Medical Officers of PHC Mandkola at 9.00 A.M. on 6.5.89
but we were all detained by the police in police lock up on 6.5.89
itself and initiated one sided challan against us illegally."

Hereinbefore in this judgment the first issue pertains to a question as D
to whether the complainant party can be termed to be aggressors or not ? The
learned Sessions Judge negated it and so did the High Court. A bare perusal
of the injury report of Hukam Chand as a matter of fact negates the theory
of aggression, as introduced by the defence. No serious injuries have been
shown to have been received by any of the accused persons and the pretended E
explanation as set up under Section 313 that Udai Chand received the fatal
blow on his head from his own arms cannot but be termed to be otherwise
not creditworthy neither acceptable. On the wake of the aforesaid the
aggression theory completely fails and we answer the first issue thus in
negative.
F
Mr. Shiva Pujan Singh, learned Advocate appearing in support of the
appeal, however, very strongly laid emphasis on conversion of the offence
from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I.

Before proceeding with the matter further, it be noticed that the other
accused persons Mani Ram, Baljit and Tuhia @ Varinder were convicted G
under Section 323 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs. l,000 each and this
appeal stands filed by Hukam Chand only.

Coming back to the issue raised as regards the invocation of Section
304 Part II !PC, strong reliance was placed on to a decision of this Court in H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Pularu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1993) SC 1487, wherein K.
Jayachandra Reddy, J., as His Lordship then was, speaking for the Bench in
paragraph 7 of the Report stated :

"7. That takes us to the nature of the offence. All the three eye-
witnesses have spoken that the appellant dealt only one blow with the
B agricultural implement. Having regard to the time and the surrounding
circumstances it is difficult to hold that he intended to cause the
death of the deceased particularly, when he was not armed with any
deadly weapon as such. As an agriculturist he must have been having
a tabbal in his hands and if in those circumstances he dealt a single
blow it is difficult to convict him by invoking clause(!) or (3) of
c Section 300, I.P.C. It cannot be said that he intended io cause that
particular injury which unfortunately resulted in the fracture of bones.
Therefore, the offence committed by him would be one amounting to
culpable homicide punishable under Section 304, Part II, l.P.C. We
accordingly set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section
D 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder.
Instead we convict him under Sec. 30"', Part II, I.P.C. and sentence
him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. The appeal
is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove."

While it is true that there was only one blow but the medical evidence
E on record definitely indicates that the severity of the blow was such that it
was sufficient for causing death. In Pularu (supra) the appellant dealt only
one blow with an agricultural implement. This Court having regard to the
fact that Pularu was an agriculturist came to a conclusion that question of
there being any intent to cause death of the deceased would not arise since
F he was not armed with any deadly weapon as such. Presently, however, the
situation is slightly different. Hukam Chand was in the houst:. He was called
in and he arrived at the scene and place of occurrence with a Pharsa which
by all means is a deadly weapon and it is this Pharsa which was used to hit
the deceased at his head resulting in immediate collapse and subsequent
death. The story set up by the appellant, as noticed hereinbefore belies the
G il!.cident and cannot but be ascribed to be a totally fabricated one. Injuries
suffered by Udai Chand, the deceased, cannot be said to be inflicted as a
matter of chance while grabbling with each other. The nature of the injuries,
as noticed hereinbefore, depicts it otherwise. If that be the case which stands
to reason that there was in fact a deliberate Pharsa blow on the deceased,
H then 'and in that event, a simple question by itself would negate the plea of
HUKAM CHAND v. STA TE OF HARY ANA [BANERJEE, J.] 209

the accused, namely as to the reason why Hukam Chand arrived at the place A
of occurrence with a Pharsa in his hand. The factum of bringing in the Pharsa
at the place of occurrence from his house when he was sent for cannot be
ignored. It definitely indicates the intent to use it and thereby cause death.

On the wake of the aforesaid, we are unable to record our concurrence
on the second count as well, as addressed by the appellant. B
In that view of the matter, we do feel it expedient to record that judgment
impugned does not warrant .any interference. The appeal thus fails and is
dismissed.

S.K.S. Appeal dismissed. C