Supreme Court of India
RAMESH KUMAR @ TONIversusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 583
- Decided
- 22 April 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The incident satisfies Exception 4 to Section 300, so the conviction is under Section 304 Part I IPC, not Section 302.
Summary
The appellant, while working in his field, struck Rajinder Pal on the head with a spade after a verbal altercation when the victim entered the field. The victim later died, and the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment, a decision upheld by the High Court. On appeal, the appellant argued that the incident fell within Exception 4 to Section 300, making it culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part I. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution evidence and found that the killing was without pre‑meditation, occurred in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and without undue advantage or cruelty, satisfying all conditions of Exception 4. Consequently, the Court converted the conviction to Section 304 Part I and reduced the sentence to seven years. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was directed to be released if he had already served the reduced term.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts of the case satisfy Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, thereby constituting culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- Whether the conviction should be under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 304
Subjects
murderculpable homicide not amounting to murderException 4IPC Section 300IPC Section 304 Part Ilife imprisonmentspade blowsudden quarrelheat of passion
Judgment
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 67
~
RAMESH KUMAR @ TONI A
V.
STATE OF HARYANA
Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2009
APRIL 22, 2009
B
- r
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.)
PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 300, Exception 4 and s.304 (part-I) - Culpable homi-
cide not amounting to murder- During an altercation accused c
giving a spade b low on head of his rival resulting in victim's
death - conviction by trial court u/s 302 affirmed by High Court
- Held: Prosecution story itself spells out that all conditions of
Exception is to s.300 are satisfied - conviction converted to
\ s.304 (part I) with custodial sentence of seven years.
-
D
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No.875 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 29.04.2008 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA
No. 272 of 2008. E
Mahabir Singh, Rakesh Dahiya, Nikhil Jain, Ajay Pal, with
? him for the Appellants.
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', T.V. George, for the Respondents.
F
The following order of the Court was delivered
Leave granted.
~ This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court dated 29.4.2008 whereby the appeal filed
G
by the present appellant against the judgment of conviction
recorded by the trial court for an offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC, has been dismissed.
The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-
67 H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
...
A The incident happened on 28th September, 1996. The
deceased Rajinder Pal was a student of the l.T.I., Ambala. His
mother Shakuntla PW.8 and uncle Sunder PW.9 had gone to
the fields to harvest the maize crop in the morning. At about
4.00 P.M. the deceased took tea for his mother and uncle. At
B about 5.00 P.M. all three were returning to the village with the
deceased going ahead by 10-15 paces. As the deceased was ,
walking through the vacant field of the accused, the appellant
"
abused him for having entered his field. The deceased also
abused the appellant in return. On this, the appellant who was
c holding a kassi (spade) while mending the ridges of the field
inflicted one blow on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, the
appellant ran away along with his weapon. Shakuntla and Sunder
removed the injured to a clinic at the bus stand, but they were
advised to take him to Ambala. Accordingly, the injured was
taken to Ambala, where he died in the Emergency Ward at about
D
8.40 P.M. The trial court relying on the evidence of the two eye
witnesses convicted the accused appellant for an offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for life. As already mentioned above, the
order of conviction and sentence has been maintained by the
E High Court.
When this matter came up for hearing before this Court on
11.9.2008, notice was issued confined to the nature of the
offence only. The learned counsel for the respondent has also
F put in appearance and we have heard their submissions on this
limited score.
Mr. Mahabir Singh, the learned senior counsel for the
appellant has pointed out that the case of the appellant would
fall within e'Xception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC and since the
G said case Was not one of murder but culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, it would be punishable under Section 304
of the IPC.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has,
however, submitted that both the trial court as well as the High
H
RAMESH KUMAR @ TONI V. STATE OF HARYANA 69
l Court had rejected this argument and held that the case related A
to a murder.
Exception 4 to Section 300 reads as under:-
"Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a
8
sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner''.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that
culpable homicide is not murder (i) if it is committed without
premeditation (2) in a sudden fight (3) in the heat of passion c
upon a sudden quarrel and (4) without the offender having taken
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner,
We find that the prosecution story itself spells out that all
these conditions are satisfied in the present case. As per the
eye witnesses, PW.8 and PW.9, the incident had happened when o
the deceased accompanied by the two witnesses were passing
through the vacant field of the accused, the appellant had abused
him for having entered his field on which the deceased had also
abused the appellant. It appears that it was after this altercation
that the appellant inflicted a spade (kassi) blow on the head of
the deceased. We also see from the prosecution evidence that E
though the fields of the two parties were adjacent to each other,
no quarrel of any kind had earlier taken place. In this view of the
matter, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant would
fall under exception 4 and be punishable under Section 304
Part I of the IPC as a single injury had been inflicted on the head F
of the deceased.
We, accordingly, allow this appeal and convert the
conviction of the appellant from one under Section 302 IPC to
Section 304 Part-I IPC and and reduce the sentence from life
imprisonment to seven years R.I. We also direct that if the G
accused has already undergone seven years of imprisonment,
.f he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
R.P. Appeal disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search