SANJEEVversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                        [2015] 2 S.C.R. 210


A                            SANJEEV
                                  V.
                      STATE OF HARYANA
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2013)
                       FEBRUARY 19, 2015
B
           [T.S. THAKUR, ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN
                  AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 Part I - Culpable homicide
  not amounting to murder- Prosecution case that the accused
C had altercation with the victim after consuming liquor
  whereafter he assaulted the victim, resulting in death of victim
  - Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by courts below - On
  appeal held: In view of the evidence relating to the chain of
  circumstances, extra judicial confession made by the
D accused to the prosecution witness which fact got
  corroborated from the statement of the doctor, act committed
  by the accused is covered by exception 4 to s.300 and is
  punishable uls. 304 Part I - Thus, conviction and sentence
E u!s. 302 modified to one uls. 304 Part I and sentenced to ten
  years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50001-.
        Disposing of the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1.1 The circumstances established by the
  prosecution against the appellant read together, makes
F it clear that it is only the appellant who could have caused
  death of 'RP' in the intervening night. When the
  prosecution successfully proved that accused suffered
  the injury almost at the same time when the deceased
  had suffered the injuries, there should have been some
G explanation on the record from the side of the defence
  as to how he (accused) received the injury and went to
  Government Hospital where his injury was recorded by
  PW-13-doctor before giving him medical treatment. In

H                               210
          SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA                 211



absence thereof, the courts below had no reason to A
disbelieve the evidence relating to chain of
circumstances and they rightly recorded the finding that
it was accused only who could have caused death with
the knowledge that act committed by him is likely to
result in death of the person assaulted. In order to read B
either intention or knowledge to commit the crime, the
courts have to examine the circumstances, as there
cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of
the accused. From the evidence of PW-12, it reflects that
while making extra judicial confession, the appellant c
narrated that after both he and the deceased got drunk,
they engaged into an altercation whereafter scuffle took
 place, and the appellant caused injuries on the forehead
and chest of the deceased which fact got corroborated
 from the statement of PW-13. [Para 13, 15, 16] [217-G-H; o
 218-A-B, D-E]
     1.2 When the prosecution evidence relating to extra
judicial confession made before PW-12 is believed by
the courts below to examine as to whether act committed
by the accused constitutes culpable homicide E
amounting to murder or not, they should have read the
statement as a whole, and the circumstances, in which
the injuries were caused by the appellant to the
deceased, should not have been ignored. Having gone
through the evidence on record and the submissions, F
the act committed by the appellant is covered by
 Exception 4 to s. 300 IPC, i.e., culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, as such the same is, punishable
 u/s. 304 Part I. The conviction and sentence recorded
 by the courts below under Section 302 IPC against the G
 appellant, is set aside. [Para 18, 19] [219-8-F]
 ' CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1149 of2013
    From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2011 of the   H
212         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A     High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal
      No. 827-DB of 2002
         J.P. Tiwari, Sanjeev Bansal, Praksh Kumar Singh for the
      Appellant.
8        Nupur Choudhary (for Kamal Mohan Gupta) for the
      Respondent.
          The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C         PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.         1. This appeal is directed
      against judgment and order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the
      High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 827-
      08 of 2002 whereby conviction and sentence recorded by the
      Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sonepat against the
      appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has
0
      been affirmed.
          2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
      perused the record.
E       3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-9 Raj Singh,
  resident of Village Hassanpur, had three brothers. Raj Pal@
  Pale (deceased) was younger to him. All the four brothers used
  to live separately. On 11.1.2000, Raj Singh had gone to
  Sonepat with his brother Raj Pal for some personal work. Raj
F Singh got held up in Sonepat, and Raj Pal left for the Village.
  Later, he (Raj Singh) also proceeded from Sonepat. At about
  10.00 p.m., when Raj Singh on his way to Village Hassanpur,
  alighted from three-wheeler, at G.T. Road crossing, he noticed
  Sanjeev@ Gaja (appellant) with blood stained clothes fleeing
G from the side of Government tubewell towards Murtha! bus
  stand. He (Raj Singh) could identify Sanjeev in the headlights
  of the vehicles, but did not have an idea that his brother (Raj
  Pal) had been murdered. After meals he went to bed. In the
  next morning, Shakuntala (wife of Raj Pal) came to him and
H told that Raj Pal had not reached home. On this, a search was
            SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA                        213
                [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.)

made by Raj Singh and his another brother Ram Kumar A
regarding their missing brother. At about 9.00 a.m., they
reached near water supply tubewell and noticed a man lying
only with trousers. They went near to see the person and
realized that their brother Raj Pal has been killed who was
lying in the pool of blood. There were wounds on the forehead, B
nose and eye brows of the body. Shirt, sweater, slippers, etc.
were lying at some distance. Suspecting that Sanjeev@ Gaja
might have killed or helped someone killing Raj Pal, he went
to the police post and gave First Information Report (Ex. PG/
1)on12.1.2000at10.40a.m.                                       c
     4. PW-6 AS.I. Jagat Singh recorded the above First
Information Report relating to offence punishable under Section
302 IPC at Police Post, Sadar, Sonepat. Police team headed
by PW-14 S.I. Yashpal Singh with PW-8 H.C. Mahinder Singh
and Constable Rajeev Singh, along with informant, proceeded D
towards the place where the dead body was lying. The body
of the deceased was taken into possession and sealed. The
inquest report (Ex. PE/2) was prepared. Shirt, sweater,
slippers, etc. and a blood stained brick were also taken into
possession by the police and a memorandum was prepared. E
Sealed dead body of Raj Pal was handed over to PW 8 H.C.
Mahinder Singh, and sent for post mortem examination through
Constable Ramesh Kumar and Rajbir. PW-11 S.I. Ram
Chander took up investigation.
                                                                F
     5. PW-3, Dr. Purnima Ahuja of Government Hospital,
conducted post mortem examination on the very day, i.e.,
 12.1.2000, on the dead body of Raj Pal, with her colleague
 Dr. R.N. Tehlan. Following ante-mortem injuries were
 recorded by the team of medical officers who prepared G
 autopsy report (Ex PA/1 /2000): -
     " 1. Multiple contusion of varying sizes 5 x 1 cm, 4x3,
     2x1, 3x1, 3x1 and 1x1 ems, present on whole of back
     about 1Oto 12 in number. On cut sections blood was
     found on the sub coetaneous tissue.                         H
214         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A         2. Defused swelling was present on the front and left
          side of chest of size 20x10 ems. On examination
          crepitus was found. On exploration, there was
          massive presence of blood in the sub coetaneous
          tissue deep to the chest wall and pericardium and
B         pleura. No. 3rd to 9th ribs were found fractured at
          multiple paces. Left thoracic cavity was full of blood
          (about 2 liters) left lung was badly lacerated on right
          side. The 3rd and 5th ribs were fractured medially and
          thoracic cavity was full of blood. The lung was
C         lacerated.
          3. Lacerated wounds 5x2 ems present on the middle
          of the forehead vertically placed. Underlines bone was
          fractured. C.V. was present.
D         4. Lacerated wound 3x2 ems. present on the right side
          just above the right eye. C.V. was present.
                            .,.-
          5. Defused swelling were present on the left cheek
          6x5cms.
E
          6. Defused swelling on the left eye.
          7. Contusion 6x5 ems present on the back of the left
          shoulder."
F           It was opined by the two doctors, who conducted post
      mortem examination, that the above mentioned ante mortem
      injuries were sufficient to cause death.
      6. Mean while, accused Sanjeev who had gone to
G Government Hospital in the intervening night of 11.1.2000 and
  12.1.2000, was also medically examined by PW-13, Dr. C.P.
  Arora of General Hospital, Sonepat, at about 1.30 a.m.
  (12.1.2000), and following injury was found on his person: -
          "22 x 0.2 x 2 to 0.5 cm incised wound on the posterior
H         surface of the left fore-arm. It was superficial in depth
             SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA                           215
                 [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

    and skin deep only. There was a corresponding cut               A
    on the shirt."

     7. After examination of the witnesses and on completion
of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge
sheet against accused Sanjeev (appellant) for his trial in          8
respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The
forensic report regarding blood group of the blood stains found
on the clothes of accused and that of deceased was also
obtained. The case was committed by the Magistrate to the
Court of Sessions and necessary copies were provided to             C
the accused as required under Section 207 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. After hearing on charge, Sessions Judge
framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
against accused Sanjeev on 23.5.2000 to which he pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
                                                                    D
     8. Thereafter, prosecution got examined fifteen
witnesses, namely, PW-1, AS.I. Rajiv Kumar (witness of
disclosure as to the recovery of blood stained clothes of
accused), PW-2, Constable Mahesh Chander (in whose
presence blood stained clothes of the deceased were taken E
into possession and recovery memo Ex. PB prepared), PW-
3, Dr. Purnima Ahuja (who conducted post mortem
examination), PW-4, Jaipal (who took photographs of dead
body of Raj Pal before the body was sealed), PW-5, Rampal
Patwari (who prepared site plan Ex.-PF), PW-6, AS.I. Jagat F
Singh (who recorded the First Information Report Ex.-PG/1 ),
PW-7, Inspector Ram Kala (who arrested the accused), PW-
8, H.C. Mahinder Singh (to whom the dead body was handed
over after the same was sealed), PW-9, Raj Singh (informant
and brother of the deceased), PW-10, Balwan Singh (another G
brother of the deceased), PW-11, S.I. Ram Chander (who sent
a letter Ex.-P0/1 requesting the Government Hospital for post
mortem examination), PW-12, Om Prakash (witness of extra
judicial confession), PW-13, Dr. C.P. Arora (who examined the
injury on person of the accused), PW-14, S.I. Yashpal Singh H
216        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A (who went to the place of incident along with other police
  officials and informant, after First Information Report was
  registered, and prepared the inquest report), and PW-15, Azad
  Singh (another witness of extra judicial confession).
           9. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the
 8
      accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code
      on 16.1.2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, in response to
      which the accused pleaded that the same was incorrect, and
      stated that he was falsely implicated.
 C      10. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,
   Sonepat, after hearing the parties, found accused Sanjeev
   guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
   and convicted him accordingly on 3.10.2002. The parties were
   heard on sentence on 5.10.2002 and the convict (Sanjeev)
 D was sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay
   fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine he was directed
   to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months.
       11. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated
 E 3.10.2002/ 5.10.2002, the convict preferred appeal before the
   High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was registered as
   Criminal Appeal No. 827-DB of 2002. The High Court, after
   hearing the parties, concurred with the view taken by the trial
   court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal by way of
 F special leave.
         12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us
   that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and no one has
   seen the appellant committing the crime. It is further argued
   that the circumstances shown by the prosecution in the present
 G case do not complete the chain, and the courts below have
   erred in law in holding the appellant guilty of the charge of
   murder. To appreciate above argument, we have to see the
   circumstances which are brought on record against the
   appellant. The prosecution has established following facts in
 H this case against the accused: -
             SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA                       217
                 [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

    i)    PW-9, Raj Singh, informant, saw the accused running      A
          away on 11.1.2000 at about 10.00 p.m. and his
          clothes were stained with blood.

    ii)   On 12.1.2000, when PW-13, Dr. C.P. Chopra
          medically examined the accused Sanjeev in the wee        B
          hours, it was found that the accused had suffered
          incised wound measuring 22 x 0.2 x 2 to 0.5 cm. on
          the posterior surface of left fore-arm, and there was
          cut in the shirt. This witness (PW-13) sent Ruka
          (memorandum) Ex. PP/1 to the in-charge, Police           C
          Post, General Hospital (even before F.l.R. was
          lodged).

    iii) PW-12, Om Prakash, has stated that accused
         Sanjeev disclosed him on 14.1.2000, that on
         11.1.2000, he (accused) had altercation with Raj Pal      D
         after consuming liquor whereafter he assaulted the
         deceased with the brick.

    iv)   PW-1,A.S.I. Rajiv Kumar, and PW-7, Inspector Ram
          Kala, have adduced the evidence that on 15.1.2000        E
          on disclosure (Ex.-PA) from the accused Sanjeev, his
          blood stained clothes which were concealed by him
          in a wooden box in his house, were recovered.

    v)    From the forensic laboratory report, it is established   F
          that same blood group was found in the blood stained
          clothes recovered i.e. blood group 'O'.

     13. The above circumstances, read together, make us
belief that it is only the appellant who could have caused death
of Raj Pal in the intervening night of 11.1.2000 and 12 .1.2000. G
When the prosecution has successfully proved that accused
Sanjeev suffered the injury, as mentioned above, almost at the
same time when the deceased had suffered the injuries, there
should have been some explanation on the record from the
side of the defence as to how he (accused) received the injury H
218       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A and went to Government Hospital where his injury was recorded
  by PW-13, Dr. C.P. Arora, before giving him medical treatment.
  In absence thereof, the courts below had no reason to
  disbelieve the evidence relating to above chain of
  circumstances and they rightly recorded the finding that it was
B accused Sanjeev only who could have caused death with the
  knowledge that act committed by him is likely to result in death
  of the person assaulted.
      14. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that there
C was no motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of
  Raj Pal, as such, in absence of motive, it cannot be said that it
  was only the appellant who could have committed the crime.
       15. It is settled principle of law that, to establish
  commission of murder by an accused, motive is not required
D to be proved. Motive is something which prompts a man to
  form an intention. The intention can be formed even at the place
  of incident at the time of commission of crime. It is only either
  intention or knowledge on the part of the accused which is
  required to be seen in respect of the offence of culpable
E homicide. In order to read either intention or knowledge, the
  courts have to examine the circumstances, as there cannot be
  any direct evidence as to the state of mind of the accused.
        16. In the present case, from the evidence of PW-12 Om
F Prakash, it reflects that while making extra judicial confession,
  the appellant narrated that after both he and Raj Pal got drunk,
  they engaged into an altercation whereafter scuffle took place,
  and the appellant caused injuries on the forehead and chest
  of the deceased. This fact gets corroborated from the
  statement of PW-13, Dr. C.P. Arora, who recorded wound
G measuring 22 x 02 x 2 to .5 cm in the medical report soon after
  the time of the incident, on the person of the appellant.
        17. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC provides that culpable
  homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre-meditation
H in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
             SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA                           219
                 [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

and without the offender having taken undue advantage or A
acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation to Exception
4 to the Section further provides that it is immaterial in such
cases which party offers provocation or commits the first
assault.
                                                                  B
      18. In our opinion, when the prosecution evidence relating
to extra judicial confession made before PW-12, Om Prakash,
is believed by the courts below to examine as to whether act
committed by the accused constitutes culpable homicide
amounting to murder or not, they should have read the C
statement as a whole, and the circumstances, in which the
injuries were caused by the appellant to the deceased, should
not have been ignored. Having gone through the evidence on
record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties, we are of the view that the act committed by the
                                                                  0
appellant in the present case is covered by Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, as such the same is, punishable under Section 304
Part I, IPC.
     19. For the reasons, as discussed above, we are inclined E
to partly interfere with the impugned orders. The conviction
and sentence recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the
High Court in·respect of offence punishable under Section 302
IPC against the appellant, is set aside. Instead, the appellant
is convicted under Section 304 Part I, IPC and sentenced to F
undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay
fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which the appellant shall undergo
imprisonment for a further period of two months. Amount of
fine if deposited in compliance of orders of courts below shall
be treated to have been deposited in compliance of direction G
of this Court as above. The appellant is said to be in jail and
he shall complete the sentence, as awarded by this Court.
     20. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.
Nidhi Jain                                   Appeal disposed of.    H