LexGURMUKH SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 548 A GURMUKH SINGH \. -, v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1609 of 2009) B AUGUST 25, 2009 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ,.. Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 304 (Part-II) - Murder c or culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Punishment for - Accused inflicting single fatal blow on the head of deceased - Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by courts below - Justification of - Held: Occurrence took place at the spur of the moment - Other co-accused did not indulge in any D overt act - No intention or pre-meditation in mind of accused to inflict such injuries to deceased as were likely to cause -t death in ordinary course of nature - Thus, conviction and sentence of accused converted from s. 302 to s. 304 (Part II) and imposed rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. E The question which arose for consideration in t~is appeal was whether on consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant u/s. 302 IPC by courts below is justified or F should be converted to one u/s. 304 (Part II) IPC. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Appropriate sentencing is a very vital function and obligation of the court. Ther~ are significant G features of the case which are required to be taken into consideration in awarding the appropriate sentence to the accused. The occurrence took place at the spur of the moment Only the appellant inflicted a single lathi blow to the deceased which proved fatal. The other accused H 548 GURMUKH SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 549 did not indulge in any overt act There was no intention A or pre-meditation in the mind of the appellant to inflict such injuries to the deceased as were likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The incident took place on 8.1.1997 and the deceased remained hospitalized and ultimately died six days later. Trial court B observed that there was no previous enmity between the parties. On consideration of the entire evidence including the medical evidence, the conviction of the appellant cannot be··sustained u/s. 302 IPC, but the appropriate section under which the appellant ought to be convicted c is s. 304 (Part II) IPC. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is converted from s. 302 IPC to one u/s. 304 (Part II) IPC and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The fine as imposed by the trial court and as upheld by the High Court is maintained. The appellant 0 would be entitled to get benefit of s. 428 Cr.P .C. [Paras 21, 22 and 25] [559-A, B; C-D; 561-8-C] Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana (1981) 3 SCC 616; Gurmail Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 185; Ku/want Rai v. State of Punjab (1981) 4 SCC 245; Jagtar E Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342; Hem Raj v. State (Delhi Administration) (1990) Supp. SCC 291; Abani K. Debnath and Anr. v. State of Tripura (2005) 13 SCC 422; Pappu v. State of M.P. (2006) 7 SCC 391, referred to. 2. It is not laid down that in no case of single blow or injury, the accused cannot be convicted u/s. 302 IPC. F In cases of single injury, the facts and circumstances of each , case has to be taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion whether the accused should G be appropriately convicted u/s. 302 IPC or u/s. 304 (Part JI) IPC. There are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case H .( 550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A has to be seen from its special perspective. "Q!e proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should B be according to the gravity of the offence. The relevant factors are as under: Motive or previous enmity; whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; the intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or tnjury; whether the death ensued c instantaneously or the victim died after several days; the gravity, dimension and nature of injury; the age and general health condition of the accused; whether the injury was caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight; the nature and size of weapon used for inflicting
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.