KALA SINGH @ GURNAM SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 225 · Decided: 21-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
225
KALA SINGH @ GURNAM SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1040-1041 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.304 Part II r/w s.34 and s.201 –
Appellant-accused and deceased had a sudden fight – In the heat
of passion, the co-accused, who had rod with him, gave a blow
with the rod on the head of deceased resulting in his death –
Thereafter appellant and co-accused hurled the dead body of
deceased in the canal – Appellant and co-accused were convicted
by the Sessions Court u/ss.302/34 and s.201 IPC – High Court
modified the conviction u/s.302 IPC to that u/s.304 Part-I IPC –
On appeal, held: Sudden fight took place in the heat of passion
upon a sudden quarrel – There was no pre-meditation – As there
was no intention on the part of the appellant and co-accused either
to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant
u/s.304 Part-I IPC – Conviction of appellant u/s.304 Part-I / s.34
IPC modified to that u/s.304 Part-II/s.34 IPC – His conviction
u/s.201 IPC maintained.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. On the fateful day, the appellant, co-accused and
deceased went to the house of one Hardev Singh Arora and they
took one bottle of liquor with them. Thereafter they went to
bridge of Doda Minor through Harike passage. There they
consumed liquor where there was a quarrel between the
appellant and deceased alleging that deceased had stolen the
pigeon of appellant. The co-accused who had a rod with him, gave
a rod blow on the head of deceased. Immediately thereafter he
fell down and as there was no response even after half an hour,
they have shifted the body to the minor canal. It is clear from
the evidence and other material placed on record that there was
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 225
225
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
no intention to kill the deceased. It is clear from the evidence
on record that the scuffle had taken place on the spur of the
moment and a sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion
upon a sudden quarrel. It was not a pre-meditated one and as
there was no intention on the part of the appellant and co-
accused either to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, the High Court ought not to have
convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-
I IPC. In absence of any intention on the part of the appellant,
it is a clear case where the conviction of the appellant is to be
modified to one under Section 304 Part-II IPC by maintaining
the conviction for the offence under Section 201 IPC. [Para 9]
[229-B-F]
2. The conviction of the appellant is modified from the one
under Section 304 Part-I/34 IPC to the one under Section 304
Part-II/34 IPC. The appellant is hereby sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and the fine
of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the High Court is maintained.
Further, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section
201 IPC and sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment and
the fine of Rs.500/- are also maintained. [Para 11][231-E]
Uday Singh v. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 79 ;
Shahajan Ali & Ors. etc. v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors. etc. (2017) 11 SC 807 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2002) 7 SCC 79
relied on
Para 7
(2017) 11 SC 807
relied on
Para 10
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos.1040-1041 of 2021.
From the Judgments and Orders dated 08.02.2019 and 01.03.2019
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No.713 DB of 2003.
Bharat Sood, P. S. Sudheer, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Karanvir Gogia,
Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Ms. Ashima Mandla, Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
227
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and orders
dated 08.02.2019 and 01.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.713 of 2003. High
Court has modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304
Part-I r/w Section 34, IPC, and sentenced to 12 years’ rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The conviction under Section
201 IPC was maintained.
3. It is alleged that, the appellant and the deceased had a sudden
fight as the deceased had stolen the pigeon of the appellant and in the
heat of passion upon a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.