HARJINDER SINGH ALIAS JINDA versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 14-11-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HARJINDER SINGH ALIAS RNDA 
\', 
DELHI ADMl~STRATIO!'i 
No~·ember 14, 1967 
[S. M. S!KR! Al'OD J. M. SHELAT. JJ,] 
Indian PeMI Code, s. 302 and 1. 304-Murder and culpable 
licml· 
cid~lngredients of ~ence of murder. 
A 
B 
The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge under s. 302 of the 
Indian Penal Code and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. 
According to the prosecution evidence the appellant was trying to assault 
one D when the latter's brother K intervened. The appellant took out a 
C 
knife and caused an injury on K's thigh which cut an artery and resulted 
in his death. 
In appeal, by special leave, before this Court it "'as urged 
that in the circumstances of the ·Case the intention and knowJedge requisite 
for an offence under s. 302 I.P.C .. had not been "'tablishcd. 
HELD: (i l The arncllant had not used lhe knife \\-·hile he wa~ en-
gaged in the fight with D. It was only when he felt that the deceased also 
came up against him that he whipoed out ·the knife. The deceased wa< 
I> 
at that time in a crouching positioL. In these circumstances it could not 
he said that the appellant intended to cause the injury in the thigh know-
ing that it would cut the artery. It was, therefore, not pos.<ible to apply 
cl. 1 of s. 300 to the act of the accused, and he wa< not 
guilty of 
murder. [250 G-Hl 
Virsa Singli '" .\'tote of Punjab. [I 958] S.C.R. 1495. applied. 
(ii) However, when the aP!lellant struck the deceased with the knife. 
he must have known that the deceased then being in a bent position. the 
blow would land in the abdomen or near it-a vulnerable part of the 
human body-and that such a blow was likelv to result in his death. In 
these circumstances it would be quite legitimate to hold mat he struck 
the deceased "ith the knife with the intention to cause an injury likelv 
to cause death. The offence. therefore. clearlv fell 
under s. 304 Part I. 
[251 B.Cl 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION 
Criminal 
Appeal 
No. 21 of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
May 19, 1964 of the Punjab High Coun. Circuit Bench at Delhi 
in Criminal Appeal No. 7-D of 1963. 
A. S. R. Chari. C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for the appellant. 
R. R. L. frenger. S. P. Nayar for R. N. Sachthey. for the 
r~spondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. 
This appeal by special leave was limited to the 
question whether the case comes under s. 302 of the Indian Penal 
C0de. 
The case of the prosecution which has been accepted by 
F 
G 
H 
-
HARJINDER V, DELHI ADMINISTRATION (Sikri, /.) 
247 
A 
the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court was, in brief, as 
follows : 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
On January 31, 1962, at about 2.30 p.m., a fight took place 
between Dalip Kumar, P.W. 12, and Harjinder Singh, appellant, 
near the water tap in front of a tin factory in Zamirwali lane, 
Delhi. Harjinder was apparently worsted in the fight and he then 
left the place holding out a threat that he would teach a lesson 
to Dalip Kumar. The appellant returned with his brother Amarjit 
5ingh to the house of Dalip Kumar and shouted to Dalip Kumar 
to come out. 
Mst. Tejibai opened the door of the house and 
asked the appellant and Amarjit Singh to go 
away, but either 
these two or the appellant pulled Dalip Kumar out of the house 
into the lane and gave him beating near a lamp-post in the comer 
of Zamirwali lane. 
At that time the deceased Kewal Kumar, 
who was the brother of Dalip Kumar, came and tried to inter-
vene and rescue his brother. It is at this stage that the evidence 
is conflicting as to what exactly happened. 
According to one 
version, Amarjit Singh accused caught hold of Kewal Kumar and 
the appellant took out the knife and stabbed the deceased. 
According to the other version, given by Mohd. Ali, P.W. 5, 
this is what happened : 
"Dalip Kumar's brother holding Jinda accused 
asked him not to fight. 
Jinda at that time toolj: out the 
knife from his pocket and opened it with both his hands 
and then gave a blow with it under the belly and the 
upper portion of the left thigh. Amarjit Singh accused 
did not do anything." 
In cross-examination he stated : 
"Jinda accused was holding Dalip Kumar from the 
collar of his shirt by his left hand. At that time Kewal 
Kl!mar was on right hand side of Jip.da accused. When 
Jinda took out' the knife and opened it with both his 
hands, Dalip Kumar and his brother Kewal were grap-
pling with Jinda accused ...... Jinda accused· gave onl

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