Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 Part II r/w s.34 and s.201 – Appellant-accused and deceased had a sudden fight – In the heat of passion, the co-accused, who had rod with him, gave a blow with the rod on the head of deceased resulting in his death – Thereafter appellant and co-accused hurled the dead body of deceased in the canal – Appellant and co-accused were convicted by the Sessions Court u/ss.302/34 and s.201 IPC – High Court modified the conviction u/s.302 IPC to that u/s.304 Part-I IPC – On appeal, held: Sudden fight took place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel – There was no pre-meditation – As there was no intention on the part of the appellant and co-accused either to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant u/s.304 Part-I IPC – Conviction of appellant u/s.304 Part-I / s.34 IPC modified to that u/s.304 Part-II/s.34 IPC – His conviction u/s.201 IPC maintained.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. On the fateful day, the appellant, co-accused and deceased went to the house of one Hardev Singh Arora and they took one bottle of liquor with them. Thereafter they went to bridge of Doda Minor through Harike passage. There they consumed liquor where there was a quarrel between the appellant and deceased alleging that deceased had stolen the pigeon of appellant. The co-accused who had a rod with him, gave a rod blow on the head of deceased. Immediately thereafter he fell down and as there was no response even after half an hour, they have shifted the body to the minor canal. It is clear from the evidence and other material placed on record that there was no intention to kill the deceased. It is clear from the evidence on record that the scuffle had taken place on the spur of the moment and a sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. It was not a pre-meditated one and as there was no intention on the part of the appellant and coaccused either to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 PartI IPC. In absence of any intention on the part of the appellant, it is a clear case where the conviction of the appellant is to be modified to one under Section 304 Part-II IPC by maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 201 IPC. [Para 9] [229-B-F]
2. The conviction of the appellant is modified from the one under Section 304 Part-I/34 IPC to the one under Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC. The appellant is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and the fine of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the High Court is maintained. Further, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section
201 IPC and sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs.500/- are also maintained. [Para 11][231-E] Uday Singh v. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 79 ; Shahajan Ali & Ors. etc. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. etc. (2017) 11 SC 807 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.