GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 362 · Decided: 08-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2301-2302 of 2014)
MAY 08, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part I, 300 Exception 4, 302 r/w 34
– Murder – Parties assembled to settle land dispute – Exchange of
words resulting in scuffle between the parties – Appellant G brought
axe from the room – Appellant S held the victim from arms and G
inflicted axe blow to victim on his head – Appellants also sustained
injuries – Complaint lodged after five days – Victim succumbed to
his injuries a month later – Conviction of accused G u/s. 302 and
accused S u/s. 302 r/w s. 34 and sentenced accordingly – Upheld
by the High Court – On appeal, held: Since both the accused
sustained injuries in the incident, non-explanation of injuries
sustained by the accused assumes significance – There was no
provocation from either side – Exchange of words resulted in scuffle
– Evidence of the doctor that the victim was drunk at the time of the
incident – It was in this circumstance, appellant G went inside the
room and brought an axe and hit on the head of the victim – No
clear evidence as to who started the attack – Both the parties were
unarmed – Though accused G used the axe but victim survived for
about one month – Appellants thus, did not take undue advantage
of the same – There was also a delay of five days in lodging the FIR
– Act of the accused would fall under “exception 4” to s. 300 –
Weapon used in the manner in which the injury was inflicted clearly
establish that the appellants intended to cause the injury which
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – In
view thereof, the conviction of the appellants u/s. 302 read with s.
34 modified to one  u/s. 304 Part-I and sentenced to imprisonment
for seven years.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 When there was exchange of words, there was
a scuffle between both the parties. In the same transaction where
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 362
362
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
363
‘H’ was attacked, the accused party also sustained injuries. Apart
from the stray, the statement made by the complainant in the
FIR, the prosecution has not offered any explanation for the
injuries sustained by the accused. Since both the accused
sustained injuries in the incident, non-explanation of injuries
sustained by the accused assumes significance. Having regard
to the injuries sustained by the accused, the trial court and the
High Court ought to have made an effort in searching out genesis
of the occurrence. [Para 12][368-H; 369-A-B]
Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and
Others (2001) 6 SCC 145 – referred to.
1.2 From the evidence, it is clear that both families have
assembled and they were talking near the tubewell to resolve
the land dispute. There was no provocation from either side. In
his evidence, PW-6 has clearly stated that there was exchange of
words which resulted in scuffle between both the parties. It has
come from the evidence of the doctor that ‘H’ was drunk at the
time of the incident. It is in this circumstance, appellant ‘GS’ had
gone inside the room adjacent to the tubewell and brought an
axe and hit on the head of deceased ‘H’. Accused also sustained
injuries in the same incident. [Para 13][369-C-D]
1.3 There is no clear evidence as to who started the attack.
Both the parties were unarmed. When there was exchange of
words between both the parties, accused ‘GS’ went inside the
room and brought an axe and caused head injuries to ‘H’. From
the post-mortem certificate, it is seen that deceased ‘H’ sustained
head injuries with multiple fractures, right fronto temporal and
temporo parietal region in the right fronto temporo parietal region
of the brain, haemorrhagic contusions in bilateral temporal region
and right parietal region. However, deceased ‘H’ survived for
about one month and he succumbed to injuries on 01.12.2007.
Though accused ‘GS’ used the axe which is a formidable weapon,
but ‘H’ survived for about one month. The appellants therefore
cannot be said to have taken undue advantage of the same. There
was also a delay of five days in lodging the FIR; the reason being,
talks were still going on for settling the matter. Considering the
totality of the circumstances, the act of the accused would fall
under “Exception 4” to Section 300 IPC. [Para 14][369-E-H]
GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB
AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
364
SUPREME CO

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