KIKAR SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 696 · Decided: 12-05-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
KIKARSINGH 
v. 
ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN 
. MAY 12, 1993. · 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: S. 300 cl. 'thirdly', Exception 4- Ingredients : 
Accused-Dangerously anned-Causedfatal blows on unarmed man, -during an . 
·altercation-Injury sufficient to cause death in·ordinary course of nature-Held, 
accused took undue advantage and acted cruelly-Exception 4 not 
applicable-Offence is one of murder-Conviction and sentence under s. 302 
awarded by trial court maintained. 
The accused-appellant was prosecuted for the offence of murder. 
D 
The prosecution case was that during an altercation between the 
E 
F 
G 
H 
accused and his neighbour the former inflicted a blow with a Kassi (spade) on 
the head of the latter who fell down; and thereafter the accused inflicted two 
more injuries on the victim; out of the three injuries the third one afflicted on 
the neck of the deceased was, according to the post-mortem report, sufficient 
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 
The trial court convicted the accused for the offence of murder and 
sentenced him to imprisonment for life under s. 302 I.P.C. The High Court 
confirmed the conviction and the sentence. 
In·appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the accused that 
the case fell under Exception 4 to s. 300 IPC inasmuch as the accused 
committed the offence on the spur of moment and inflicted the injuries during 
the quarrel in the heat of passion without any premeditation and he had no 
intention to cause particular injuries. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The offence committed by the accused is one of murder and 
the trial court rightly convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life 
under s. 302 IPC. (703-D) 
696 
-
. 
-~ 
.... 
KIKAR SINGH v. STA 1E OF RAJASTHAN 
697 
2. Culpable homicide by intentionally causing bodil~· injury which is 
found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death attracts 
clause 'thirdly' ofs. 300 I.P.C. It would be murder unless it is brought in any 
one of the exceptions. (700-E) 
3.1 For application of Exception 4 to s. 300 I.P.C. all the conditions 
enumerated therein must be satisfied: the act must be committed without 
premeditation in a sudden fight ill the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel, 
without the offender's having taken undue advantage, and the accused had 
not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. (701-A, 700-H) 
A 
B , 
3.2 The accused used deadly weapon against the unarmed man and 
C 
struck him a blow on the head. He had taken undue advantage He did not stop 
with the first blow, he inflicted two more blows on the fallen man and the third 
one proved to be fatal. He acted crudely with no justification. By his conduct 
the appellant denied himselfofthe benefit of Exception 4 to s. 300 I.P.C. (702· 
C) 
Panduranga Narayan Jawalekar v. State of Maharashtra: [1979] 1SCC132, 
relied on .. 
4.1 It is not necessar~· that death must be inevitable or in all circum· 
stances the injury inflicted must cause death. If the probability of death is very 
great the requirement of clause third of s. 300 I.P.C. is satisfied. If there is 
probabilit~· in a lesser degree of death ensuing from the act committed the 
finding should be of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The 
emphasis is on sufficiency ofinjury to cause death. The Judge must always try 
to find whether the bodily injur~· inflicted was that which the accused intended 
to inflict. The intention must be gathered from a careful examination of all the 
facts and circumstances in a given case. The citus at which the injury was 
inflicted, nature of the injury, weapon used, force with which it was used are 
all relevant facts. (703-B-C) 
4.2 The accused inflicted fatal blow, i.e., third injury severing the neck 
after the deceased had fallen on the ground due to impact of the first injury 
on parietal region. The third injury is proved to be sufficient in the ordinary 
course ofnature to cause death. £,·en otherwise death is inevitable. When the 
appellant inflicted two injuries on a fa11en man, he necessarily intended to 
inflict those two injuries, though the first injury may be assumed to have been 
inflicted during the course of altecation. (702-E-F) 
D 
E 
F 
G, 
H 
698 
SUPREME COURT ~PORTS 
[I 993) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Virsa Singh v. State o.f Punjab: AIR 1958 SC, 465 and Rajwant Singh v. State 
of Kera/a: AIR 1966 SC 1844, f(!lied on. 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Crimina
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.