JAGRUP SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 07-05-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

839 
A 
.., 
JAGRUP SINGH 
v • 
STATE OF HARYANA 
May 7, 1981 
[D.A. DESAI AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
Penal Code-Section 300, clause Thirdly-When applicable-Accused hit the 
deceased in the heat of moment, without premeditation, resulting in death-Whether 
falls under Exception 4 to section 300 J.P. C. 
The appellant and the deceased were collaterals. On the death of his brother, 
~ 
the deceased was looking after the affairs of his brother's wife and children. 
Some while before on the day of occurrence, the deceased attended the marriage 
of bis brother's daughter. 
The prosecution case against the appellant was that he nursed a grievance 
against the deceased that it was he who induced his sister-in-law not to invite 
him, (the appellant) and his brothers to the marriage and incensed by such insult 
he wanted to teach the deceased a lesson. After the marriage, armed with a 
gandhala (a common agricultural implement with a flat, rectangular iron strip with 
three sides blunt, embedded in a wooden handle which is used for digging holes) 
the appellant and his brothers emerged suddenly and in a joint assault the appel-
lant struck a blow on the head of the deceased with the blunt side of the 
gandhala. 
_., 
The Sessions Judge held that the appellant struck the blow on the head with 
intent to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of 
nature to cause death and that, therefore, he was guilty of culpable homicide 
amounting to murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. 
Affirming the conviction and sentence the High Court was of the view that 
there was no specific and positive evidence as to the motive for the murder but 
that it was more probable that the accused had joined the marriage and that 
"something happened on the spur of the. movement'', which resulted. in the 
infliction of the injury leading to the death of the deceased. 
In appeal it was contended that the offence amounted to culpable homicide 
not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 part II I.P.C. because 
all that could be attributed to the appellant was knowledge that a blow struck 
on the head with the blunt side of the gandhala would cause an injury, which 
was likely to cause death but that in any event when be struck the blow he could 
not be attributed with intention to cause death. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : The appellant having been found to have struck the deceased with 
the blunt side of the gandhala in the heat of the moment without premeditation 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 3 S.C.R. 
and in a sudden fight all the requirements of Exception 4 to section 3(0 are met. 
Having held that it was more probable that the appellant had also atte.nded 
the marriage but that something had happened on the spur of the moment resul-
ting in the infliction of the injury and eventual death of the deceased the High 
Court erred in applying clause Thirdly of section 300. 
Giving a solirary blow on a vital part of the body resulting in death cannot 
always necessarily reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to 
murder punishable under section 304 part II of the Code. If a man deliberately 
struck another on the head with a heavy log or an iron rod or a lathi so as to 
cause a fracture of the skull, in the absence of any circumstances negativing the 
presumption, he must be deemed to have intended to cause death or such bodily 
injury as is sufficient to cause death. The intention must be gathered from the 
kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit, the amount of force employed and 
the circumstances attendant upon death. [843 B-C] 
Under clause Thirdly of section 300 culpable homicide is murder if the act 
which causes death is done with intention of causing a bodily injury and that 
-1 
injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death i.e. the injury 
found was one that was intended to be inflicted. [844 F-G) 
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [1958] S.C.R. 1495 at 1503 applied. 
Gudur Dusadh v. State of Bihar [1972] 3 S.C.R. 505, Chahat Khan v. State of 
Haryana, A.LR. 1972 S.C. 2574, Chamru Budhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 
A.LR. 1954 S. C. 652, Willie (Williams) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh 
[1955) 2 S.C.R. 1140, Harjinder Singh (alias Jinda) v. Delhi Admn. [1968] 2 
S.C.R. 246 & Lakshman Ka/u Nikalje v. State of Maharashtra [1968) 3 S.C.R. 
685 referred to. 
In the instant case the genesis of the quarrel was not known. The prosec

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