AJITSINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 375 · Decided: 01-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 12 S.C.R. 375 
AJITSINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2094 of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER, 01 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 304 Part I - Altercation 
between parties -
Victim hurled abuses at appellant -
Appellant asked his servant to get spade and thereafter C 
inflicted blows on the neck of the victim - Victim taken to the 
hospital and after treatment for three days succumbed to her 
injuries - Appellant convicted u1s: 302 and sentenced to 
rigorous imprisonment for life whereas the servant, co-
accused convicted uls. 302134 - High Court upheld the 
D 
conviction and sentence of the appellant however, acquitted 
the co-accused - Appeal before Supreme Court - Held: Per 
Harjit Singh Bedi, J: Appellant took undue a_gvantage and 
acted in a cruel and unusual manner which exclude 
applicability of Exception 4 to s. 300, thus, his case falls within 
E 
the ambit of s. 302 - Appellant's conviction u/s. 302 does not 
call for interference - Per Gyan Sudha Misra, J: Incident 
happened on the spur of the moment and was not a pre-
meditated assault on the deceased and the appellant was 
deprived of the power of self-control on account of grave and 
sudden provocation, thus, the case would fall u/s. 304 Part I 
F 
- Sentence of /if e imprisonment reduced to a period of ten 
years uls. 304 Part I - In view of divergence of opinion 
between the two Judges, matter referred to Larger Bench 
- Reference to larger bench. 
According to the prosecution, over a minor issue 
appellant reprimanded 'LK' and her companion. As a 
result there was altercation between the parties and due 
to the same the appellant got provoked and asked his 
G 
375 
H 
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A servant 'AK' to bring spade. 'AK' brought the spade and 
the appellant inflicted two blows on 'LK'. PW 7 (son of 
'LK') was present at the place of the incident. He raised 
an alarm and the entire village reached at the place of 
incident. Thereafter, 'LK' was taken to the hospital and 
B after three days of the treatment, she died. PW 6 who was . 
near the place of the incident lodged FIR. The trial court 
convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him 
to rigorous imprisonment for life; and 'AK' (co-accused) 
was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. The High Court 
C upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant 
however, acquitted the co-accused. Therefore, the 
appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court 
D PER: MISRA, J. 
HELD: 1.1 In so far as the genesis and manner of 
occurrence and the factum of death of 'LO' is concerned, 
the'findings recorded by the courts below that the 
E deceased 'LO' died in the manner and at the place as 
alleged by the prosecution, is accepted [Para 7] [385-F-
G] 
1.2 From the prosecution story itself it emerges that 
when the deceased was cutting the grass for fodder in 
F the field of the appellant, the appellant was not armed 
with any weapon and it is only when the deceased hurled 
filthy abuses to the appellant, he directed his servant 'AK' 
to bring a Kassi and ordered him to catch hold of the 
deceased after which he gave two blows on the neck of 
G the deceased as a result of which she died on the 4th day 
of the incident. Thus, on perusal of the evidence on 
record, it is clear that the incident happened on the spur 
of the moment and was not a premeditated assault on the 
deceased. Nevertheless, the appellant had inflicted 
H grievous injury on the neck of the deceased but she did 
AJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
377 
not die instantly and was taken to the hospital where A 
treatment was given to her for three days and finally she 
succumbed to the injury. Thus, it can be logically and 
reasonably inferred that the accused-appellant although 
inflicted grievous injury on the neck of the deceased and 
gave two blows, the assault was not the result of pre-
B 
planning or pre-meditated assault and the same did not 
result in instantaneous death of the deceased but she 
was taken to the hospital for treatment where she 
succumbed to the injury after four days of the incident. 
[Paras 11 and 12] [487-D-G] 
c 
1.3 The appellant no doubt inflicted the injury on the 
deceased with' the intention of causing such bodily injury 
which could result in her death and in that view of the 
facts and circumstance, knowledge will have to be 
attributed to him that he inflicted injury on the deceas

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.