Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, ARAVIND KUMAR, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Mohd. Ahsan – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2265 of 2024, Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5460 of 2024, D. No. 36602 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Incident occurred without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel – Evidence would also not show that accused-Appellant had either taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Present case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC – Conviction of accused-Appellant under Section 302 of IPC altered to one under Part I of Section 304 of IPC and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for a period of three months. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges judgment and order dated 09th October, 2013 passed by Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 233-DB of 2007 wherein Division Bench dismissed Criminal Appeal preferred by Appellant and upheld order of conviction and sentence as recorded by Trial Court.
Findings of Court:
Period already spent by the accused-Appellant in custody shall be set-off against sentence.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 09th October, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 233-DB of 2007 wherein the Division Bench dismissed the Criminal Appeal preferred by the Appellant Mohd. Ahsan and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 25th January, 2007 as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 09 of 2005.
3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
3.2 The prosecution case is that on 17th August, 2005 at about 11-11:30 p.m. the de-facto complainant (PW-10) had been taking food at Shiv Dhaba which was situated opposite Bus Stop, Jagadhri, in the company of Charan Singh and Rajiv Kumar (PW-12), when another group of four men, namely, Neeraj Gulati (PW-11), Kamal Kumar, Naresh Kumar and the deceased arrived at the Dhaba to partake their meals. To attract the attention of the waiter, the deceased called the waiter by use of the word “hello.” This gesture irked another customer i.e. the present Appellant who was seated in a corner of the Dhaba, smoking a cigarette. The Appellant initially abused the deceased in the name of his sister and thereafter rose from his seat, walked up to the deceased and grappled with him. During the said quarrel, the Appellant and the deceased went out of the Dhaba where they were separated by the complainant (PW-10) and his companions. However, refusing to relent, the Appellant rushed to his car and pulled out a glass bottle which he broke on the bonnet of his car and thereafter proceeded to inflict five injuries on the body of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell to the ground bleeding, after which the Appellant fled from the scene. Subsequently, Neeraj Gulati (PW-11) and the others present at the Dhaba placed the deceased on the motorbike of PW-11 and rushed him to Aggarwal Hospital, but owing to the unavailability of a doctor, the deceased was subsequently taken to the Civil Hospital, Jagadhri, where he eventually succumbed to his injuries.
3.3 Upon the conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same came to be committed to the Sessions Judge.
3.4 Charges came to be framed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3.5 The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. In his defence, the Appellant stated that it was a case of false implication since he had not used the glass bottle to cause any injury to the deceased; whereas, it was the deceased who
Homicide committed in a sudden fight, in heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel, is not murder under Section 302 of IPC.
Unintentional homicide committed in a sudden fight in heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel, is punishable under Part-I of Section 304 IPC.
Unintentional homicide is not murder.
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intention to kill in a sudden quarrel can lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Exception (4) to Section 300 IPC - The judgment established the application of exception (4) to Section 300 IPC, which considers cases where the assault is made suddenly at the heat of passion in the....
The court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, establishing that the incident arose from sudden provocation and was not premeditated.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
