LexRAJ PAUL SINGH & ANR. versus STATE THROUGH P.S. MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 8 S.C.R. 1203 RAJ PAUL SINGH & ANR. v. STATE THROUGH P.S. MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD (Criminal Appeal No. 1339 of 2008) OCTOBER 09, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 and 300 Exception 4 - Prosecution u/s. 302134 - Conviction under by courts below A B - On the basis of evidence of two eye-witnesses - On appeal, C plea that case was covered under Exception 4 to s. 300 - Conviction uls. 302134 was correct - The case does not fall under Exception 4 to s. 300 because the accused have taken undue advantage and have acted in cruel or unusual manner. The appellants-accused were prosecuted for killing D a person by stabbing him. The prosecution case was that PW1 (wife of the deceased) lodged an FIR that appellant No. 1 (brother of the deceased) started abusing her, her children and her husband (deceased). When the deceased asked him to stop this, he asked appellant No. E 2 (his wife) to get a knife. Appellant No. 2 gave the knife to him, and he stabbed the deceased. PW-1 and PW-2 (son of the deceased) were the eye-witnesses to the incident. Trial Court convicted both the accused uls. 302 rlw s. 34 IPC. High court confirmed the conviction. F In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that there was no premeditation and the accused stabbed the deceased in a heat of passion which arose out of sudden quarrel and hence Exception 4 to s. 300 IPC was G attracted. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 1203 H A B c 1204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 8 S.C.R. HELD: 1. It is clear from the language of Exception 4 to Section. 300 IPC, that culpable homicide will n.ot amoun.t to murder, if it is committed without premeditation. in. a sudden. fight in. the heat of passion. upon. a sudden. quarrel provided the offender has n.ot taken. un.due advantage or acted in. a cruel or unusual man.n.er. In. a case where a man. stabs an.other person., un.less it is established that there was some threat from that person. to the offender, the court can.not possibly hold that the offender by stabbing that person. has n.ot taken. an.y un.due advantage or has n.ot acted in. a cruel or unusual man.n.er. [Para 6] (1207-G; 1208-E] 2. In. the in.stan.t case, the conviction. of the appellants for the offence un.der Section. 302 r/w. Section. 34 IPC, is based on. the evidence of PW-1 an.d PW-2, the two eye- 0 witnesses. It is clear from the evidence of the two eye- witnesses that the deceased was un.armed an.d there was absolutely n.o physical threat from the deceased to the appellants an.d appellant No.1 after bein.g provided with a kn.ife by appellant No.2, stabbed the deceased on. the E left side of the chest on. the instigation. of appellant No.2 an.d because of these in.juries the deceased died. This was, thus, a case where the appellants have taken. un.due advantage an.d have acted in. a cruel or unusual man.n.er an.d the case does n.ot fall within. Exception 4 to Section. F 300 IPC. The trial court an.d the High Court have rightly held the appellants guilty of the offence of murder u/s. 302 r/w. Section. 34 IPC. [Paras 7, 8 an.d 9] (1208-F; 1210-B-C- F] G H Narayanan Nair Raghavan Nair v. The State of Travancore - Cochin AIR 1956 SC 99; Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1993 SC 2426:1993 (3) SCR 696; Naveen Chandra v. State of Uttranchal 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 668 - relied on.. RAJ PAUL SINGH & ANR. v. STATE THROUGH P.S. 1205 MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD Case Law Reference: 2006 (9) Suppl.SCR 668 Relied on. AIR 1956 SC 99 1993 (3) SCR 696 Relied on. Relied on. Para 5 Para 6 Para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1339 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 26.4.2007 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1258 of 2006. Kuldip Singh, Mohit Mudgil for the Appellants. D. Mahesh Babu, Mayur R. Shah, Bala Shivdu for the A B c Respondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.04.2007 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1258 of 2005. E F 2. The facts very briefly are that on 19.04.2004 Santoshi (hereinafter referred to as 'the informant') lodged an FIR in Musheerabad P.S., District Hyderabad, alleging that on 18.04.2004 at about 9.30 P.M. her husband's brother, the appellant no.1, came in an auto in a fully drunken condition, went to his house situat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.