KHUMAN SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2019] 11 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 27-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
KHUMAN SINGH
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2019)
AUGUST 27, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)(v) – Murder –
Prosecution case that when victim was cultivating the field and
grazing his cattle, appellant-accused came to the field of the victim
and left his buffaloes for grazing – In a wordy altercation, the
appellant hit the victim on his head with an axe due to which victim
fell down and later succumbed to injuries – FIR was registered
against the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/
ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Trial Court convicted appellant
under the said sections of the Act and sentenced him life
imprisonment – High Court affirmed the conviction – On appeal,
held: In the instant case, the appellant and deceased exchanged
wordy abuses on which, appellant gave deceased blows on his head
causing six head injuries – Where the occurrence took place
suddenly and there was no premeditation on the part of the accused,
it falls under Exception 4 to s. 300 IPC – Therefore, conviction of
appellant u/s.302 IPC is modified as conviction u/s. 304 Part-II
IPC – Insofar as conviction under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act is concerned, from the evidence and other materials on record,
there is nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the
appellant only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste
– Thus, conviction u/s. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act is not sustainable.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The entire incident was in a sudden fight in which
the appellant-accused caused head injuries on the deceased with
an axe. There was no prior deliberation or determination to fight.
The sudden quarrel arose between the parties due to trivial issue
of grazing the buffaloes of the appellant for which, the deceased
270
   [2019] 11 S.C.R. 270
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
271
raised objection. In a sudden fight, the appellant had inflicted
blows on the head of the deceased with an axe which caused six
head injuries. Though the weapon used by the appellant was axe
and the injuries were inflicted on the vital part of the body viz.
head, knowledge is attributable to the appellant-accused that the
injuries are likely to cause death. Considering the fact that the
occurrence was in a sudden fight, in our view, the occurrence
would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction
of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC is therefore to
be modified as conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. [Para
10] [275-D-F]
2. The next question falling for consideration is whether
the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be sustained?
Deceased belongs to “Khangar” Caste and in a wordy altercation,
appellant-accused is said to have called the deceased by his caste
name “Khangar” and attacked him with an axe. Calling of the
deceased by his Caste name is admittedly in the field when there
was a sudden quarrel regarding grazing of the buffaloes.
[Para 11] [275-G-H]
3. The object of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act is to provide for
enhanced punishment with regard to the offences under the Indian
Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years
or more against a person or property knowing that the victim is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the
present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to
“Khangar”-Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence
to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that
the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore,
the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act is not sustainable. [Paras 12, 13] [276-F; 277-B-
C]
Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC
771 : [2006] 2 SCR 793 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 2 SCR 793
relied on
Para 13
KHUMAN SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 11 S.C.R.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1283 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2018 of the High Court
M.P. bench at Gwalior in CRA No. 799 of 2006
Dr. J. P. Dhanda, Mrs.Raj Rani Dhanda, Vineet Dhanda, N.A.
Usmani, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms

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