Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 538
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Ravinder Kumar @Raju – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1494 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5690 of 2020)
Decided On : 25-03-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mohd Irshad, A.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder in road rage – Conviction can be modified from Section 302 of IPC to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder in road rage – Life sentence – Post mortem report clearly indicates homicidal death occasioned by single injury inflicted on head – Iron rod was recovered on confessional statement of appellant under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – There is no motive alleged on accused nor can there be found any pre meditation of accused – It was in course of such altercation that blow was inflicted on head of accused resulting in an injury which caused his death – There is no pre-meditation and it was deceased and persons along with him who chased and confronted accused – It was a group of five persons who confronted occupants of vehicle involved in hit and run – There cannot be any intention to cause death alleged but there is definitely intention to cause bodily injury which resulted in death – Conviction has to be modified to be under Section 304 Part I of IPC – Sentence has to be of 7 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine imposed and default sentence maintained. (Paras 5, 6 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Road rage resulted in murder of one of assailants and arraignment of three who were targeted, as accused for murder. Appellant is sole accused, out of three, convicted for offence under Section 302 of India Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- with default clause of rigorous imprisonment for two months. Other two accused were acquitted.
Findings of Court:
Appellant, if on bail, shall surrender within a period of two months before jurisdictional Court, if he has not already completed seven years in jail.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. Road rage results in disastrous consequences to both the perpetrator and the target; as the present case demonstrates, which resulted in the murder of one of the assailants and the arraignment of three who were targeted, as accused for the murder. The appellant is the sole accused, out of the three, convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the India Penal Code, 18601[“I.P.C.”] and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) with default clause of rigorous imprisonment for two months, if fine is not paid. The other two accused were acquitted.
3. Of the two acquitted; one was acquitted by the Trial Court and one by the Appellate Court. The State had challenged the acquittal by the Trial Court by way of an appeal which also stood rejected by the impugned judgment. As of now, we are only concerned with the appellant-herein who was convicted and sentenced for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the I.P.C. At the admission stage, this Court had issued a notice limited to the nature of the offence; whether it falls under Section 302 or Section 304 of the I.P.C. We are, hence, confining ourselves to this aspect and the sentencing, if a lesser offence is made out.
4. On facts, it is to be noticed that the deceased was riding a motorcycle in which his father was travelling pillion. Alongside the brother of the deceased was also riding a bike; the three proceeding to a common destination. At a crossing, they saw a three wheeler colliding with a scooter and the rider of the scooter falling down. The offending vehicle sped away while the father and sons approached the fallen scooterist, who told them that he had escaped without any injuries. At that moment, another scooterist also joined them, who was the colleague of the person involved in the accident; both being Lecturers in a nearby college. The scooterist wanted to pursue the offending vehicle and requested the father and sons to join them. Together, the five went after the vehicle and detected it at the crime scene. The scooterist and the father accosted the identified accused and questioned them on their conduct. It was the prosecution’s case that while an altercation was going on, the appellant-herein picked up an iron rod from his vehicle and hit the deceased on the head. After this the three accused, who were in the three-wheeler, sped away and the injured was taken to the hospital.
5. A DDR was registered immediately on the information supplied by the father but no First Information Report2[“F.I.R.”] was registered. An F.I.R. was registered only after five days when the victim succumbed to the injury. The post-mortem report clearly indicates a homicidal death occasioned by the single injury inflicted on the head. The iron rod was recovered on the confessional statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We are not looking at the nitty-gritty of the evidence, since the limited adjudication possible is as to the nature of the crime; whether it can be classified as a culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the I.P.C.
6. There is no motive alleged on the accused nor can there be found any pre- meditation of the accused. True, the accused were travelling in a vehicle which hit the scooterist and sped away. It was the scooterist accompanied by four others, one of whom was the deceased, who chased the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle and its occupants having been identified, it was the five who confronted them and accused them of having dashed down the scooter and not having even the courtesy to help the fallen scooterist. Pausing here, we have to clearly notice that the father of the deceased and the scooterist who had been hit, both spoke of the number of the offending vehicle having been taken by them. Despite this, they did not think it fit to approach the police and took law into their own hands, while purs
