LexLACHMAN SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
LACHMAN SINGH A v. STATE OF HARYANA JULY 28, 2006 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 300 Exception 4-Culpable homicide is not murder-When attracted-Held, when there is 'sudden fight' implying mutual provocation C and aggravation and there is absence of any premeditation-Injury is not the direct consequence of that provocation-Both parties are equally to be blamed and it is difficult to apportion share of blame which attaches to each jighter- 0.ffender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner-Fight must be with the person killed-Jn the facts of the case D conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I. Section 307-Attempt to murder-When attracted-Held, when there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof-Not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted-Section makes distinction between act of the accused and its result, if any-Court has E to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention of knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section-In the facts, conviction under Section 307 upheld. Prosecution alleged that there were disputes between D and P regarding flow of water as P would not allow flow of water through the F roof of his kicthen and on the fateful day there was again disputes between the families of D and P. Accused D got infuriated and asked his son, L, to bring revolver from inside and asked L to shoot whereupon L fired and the shot hit N. Thereafter, accused D took revolver from L and started firing shots which hit J and A who were injured. Accused R exhorted D G and I that nobody should be spared as they had harassed them and started pelting brickbats. V escaped and jumped down from the roof. Informant and B who were standing on the roof of S, neighbour of P, challenged accused persons and reached the spot and upon seeing them coming the accused persons ran away with the revolver. N died from the fire arm 157 H 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A injury. FIR was registered against D, Land R for commission of offences under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act 1959. Prosecution examined A, V and informant who were stated to be eye witnesses. Trial Court recorded conviction and sentenced L under Section 302 IPC and D & R under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Trial Court also recorded conviction and sentenced D under B Section 307 IPC and L & R under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Appeal preferred by accused persons was dismissd by the High Court. Hence these appeals by accused persons D, L & R. Appellants contended that there was no motive established and the C medical evidence runs contrary to this version of the alleged eye witnesses: that Section 302 IPC has no application as the occurrence took place in course of a sudden quarrd; that ingredients of Section 307 IPC are also absent; and that involvement of R is not established as R is alleged by witnesses to have pelted brickbats which resulted in injury on V but evidence of doctor clearly shows that the said injury was not possible by D brickbats. Allowing the appeal of R and partly allowing the appeals of D and L, the Court. HELD: 1.1. The evidence of the witnesses, more particularly, injured E witnesses have been carefully analysed by the Trial Court and the High Court. There is no discrepancy of any vital nature which will affect credibility of the witnesses. There is no doubt that some minor discrepancies are noticed. But that does not in any way dilute the otherwise cogent evidence of inj11red witnesses about the role played by two of the F accused persons i.e. Land D. (164-B-CI 1.2. The evidence is inadequate so far accused R is concerned. It was prosecution case that he had thrown brickbats which caused injury on V. But the same is clearly ruled out by the doctor's evidence to the effect that none of the injuries can be caused by brickbats. Additionally, his role G of presence at the spot has not been established by any cogent and credible evidence. Therefore, conviction so far as he is concerned, cannot be sustained and the appeal filed by him is allowed. (164-D-E( 2. The F1.rnrth Exception to Section 300 IPC of Indian Penal Code, 1860 covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a H ca
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.