Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajive Bhalla, Surinder Gupta, JJ.
Atam Parkash - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. D-614-DB of 2002
Decided On : 02-08-2014
Indian Penal Code - Offence - Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 299 and 300 IPC, as well as Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, to determine the nature of the offence committed by the appellant. The court emphasized the distinction between premeditated intention to cause death and acts done in the heat of the moment or fit of anger. It also highlighted the requirements to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, emphasizing the need for a sudden fight, absence of premeditation, act done in the heat of passion, and no undue advantage or cruel behavior by the offender. The court referred to relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Bhoop Singh. The incident occurred after a Panchayat decision to severe the relations of the appellant and his wife, leading to a confrontation between the appellant and the deceased, resulting in the appellant causing injuries to the deceased with a knife-like strip.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's actions did not demonstrate premeditated intention to cause death, but rather occurred in the heat of the moment and fit of anger during a sudden quarrel. The court concluded that the offence proved against the appellant was under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
Issues: The key issue was to determine the nature of the offence committed by the appellant - whether it constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which would make it culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions in Section 299, 300, and Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as well as the application of relevant case laws to the facts of the case. The court emphasized the absence of premeditated intention and the occurrence of a sudden fight in the heat of passion, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's actions fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Final Decision: The court modified the appellant's conviction from offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC. The appellant was awarded a lenient sentence considering the circumstances, and was directed to pay a fine and compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.
1. The appellant faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and was convicted and awarded sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Brief Facts
The police registered the case on the statement of Dalbir son of Pania Ram, resident of village Mehanda. The appellant who is from the brotherhood of complainant Dalbir, was married to Kavita daughter of Jai Lal, resident of Siwani. The relations of the appellant with his wife were strained. On 20.06.2001, the parents of Kavita brought a Panchayat to village Mehanda and Panchayat decided to severe the relations of the appellant and his wife Kavita. The entire dowry articles were taken back to Siwani by the parents of Kavita.
2. On the same day, at about 08.00 P.M., Bhoop Singh (since deceased) brother of complainant along with Rajesh son of Ram Chand, Jai Bhagwan son of Chhotu, Jagbir son of Bhana and Bijender son of Nanu Ram were going towards the house of Sarpanch and complainant was behind them. On reaching in front of the house of appellant, the deceased told him that the decision of his in-laws in the Panchayat was not proper. They have taken away his wife along with all the dowry articles severing all their relations with him. This infuriated the appellant and he abused the deceased and asked him why he was making fun of him, as it was the deceased who had served tea to his in-laws in the Panchayat. Saying this, he attacked Bhoop Singh with a knife like strip and gave a blow on the left side of his chest and another blow in the middle of the chest. Bhoop Singh tried to run away but fell down. The appellant caused another blow to Bhoop Singh on the right side of his back, while he was lying on the ground. The persons accompanying him raised noise, at which the appellant ran away from the spot but was followed by Rajesh and Jai Bhagwan, who with the help of villagers caught him. The complainant, Jagbir and Bijender took care of Bhoop Singh and found that blood was oozing out from the chest injury. They immediately called a four-wheeler and took Bhoop Singh for treatment to Govt. Hospital, Hansi where Bhoop Singh was declared 'brought dead'.
3. The matter was reported to the police. Balbir Singh SHO recorded the F.I.R. on the statement of complainant and the appellant who had been apprehended at the spot, was taken in custody. After completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') was submitted in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi. The copies of the documents as required under Section 207Cr.P.C. were supplied to the appellant and finding a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial vide order dated 10.09.2001.
4. The trial Court found a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant and framed the charge against the appellant accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In support of its case, prosecution examined Dr. S.P. Malik as PW 1, Raju Draftsman as PW 2, Constable Karambir Singh as PW 3, ASI Anoop Singh as PW 4, Head Constable Dharam Lal as PW 5, complainant Dalbir as PW 6, eyewitness Vijender as PW 7, eyewitness Jai Bhagwan as PW 8, Dr. O.P. Charaya as PW 9, Constable Mahender as PW 10, Investigating Officer Sub Inspector Balbir Singh as PW 11 and Constable Rameshwar as PW 12.
For proper appraisal of their statements, the above witnesses examined by the prosecution can be put into four categories:-
(i) Eyewitnesses
Dalbir Singh PW 6, Vijender PW 7 and Jai Bhagwan PW 8 are the eyewitnesses who have deposed regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place and supported the prosecution case.
(ii) Medical evidence
6. Dr. S.P. Malik PW 1 had conducted the postmortem ex
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
