RAJINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2014] 12 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 17-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 12 S.C.R. 564 
RAJINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
·(Criminal Appeal No. 1039 of 2014) 
DECEMBER 17, 2014 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM · KALIFULLA AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 300 exception 4, s. 304 Part-I/ -
C On facts, in continuation of the earlier quarrel, fire broke out 
in which the fire shots Were exchanged between both the 
parties resulting in the death of two on the complainant side 
and one on the appellant side- Conviction and sentence of 
the appellant uls. 302 for causing murder of two by the courts 
D below - Interference with - Held: Except a very sketchy 
unsupported FSL Report, no other acceptable evidence to 
show that the appellant was in any way responsible for killing 
of his own brother with the aid of his double barrel gun - On 
basis of the sketch drawn, FSL Report, evidence of the wife 
E of the appellant's brother, death of two on the complainant's 
side occurred due to the firing resorted to as part of self 
defence by the appellant - It would amount to culpable 
homicide not amounting to murder, which was committed 
without any pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of 
F. passion upon a sudden quarrel and that the offender did not 
take un.due advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, 
which WDUld normally fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 
- Thus, conviction modified to one u/s. 304 Part-II with the 
punishment of ten years - Since the sentence already 
G suffered by the appellant is more than sufficient, the appellant 
to be released if not required in any other offence - Arms Act 
- s.27. 
H· 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1039 of 2014. 
564 
RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
565 
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.04.2013 of the High 
A 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal 
No. D-953-DB of 2008. 
Balaji Srinivasan, Vaishali Dixit, Mayank Kshirsagar, 
Srishti for the Appellant. 
. Vikas Sharma, Dr. Monika Gusain for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. This appeal by way of special leave, at the instance of 
the sole accused, is directed against the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at 
Chandigarh dated 26.4.2013 in Criminal Appeal No.D-953-DB 
B 
c 
of 2006 in and by which the conviction and sentence imposed 
D 
on the appellant by the Trial Court dated 27.10.2006/ 
30.10.2006 in Sessions Case No.33 of 6.6.2003/11.5.2006 
came to be confirmed. The appellant was convicted for offence 
punishable under Section 302 for causing murder of Shri Ram 
and Suraj Mal. He was also found guilty and convicted for the 
E 
offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act for 
misusing his licensed gun. He was sentenced to undergo 
imprisonment for life, apart from payment of fine of Rs.20,000/ 
- with the default clause to undergo further rigorous 
imprisonment for two years. For the offence under Section 27 
F 
of the Arms Ac.t imprisonment of two years' rigorous 
imprisonment was imposed. The sentences were directed to 
run concurrently. The co-accused/Jai Bhagwan was acquitted 
of the charges framed against him. However, other co-accused 
Neeraj, was also implicated in the crime along with the 
G 
appellant and being a juvenile was dealt with by the Juvenile 
Justice Board independently. 
2. The case of the prosecution was, on 19.3.2003 at about 
6-7 P.M. Sandeep (PW.10) and the juvenile accused-Neeraj 
were quarreling after celebrating Holi in the street in front of the 
H 
566 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
house of Suraj Mal, the deceased, is the father of the 
complainant-Mukesh. Mukesh was examined as PW.9, who 
attempted to separate Neeraj and Sandeep but Neeraj kept on 
abusing consistently. In the meantime, on hearing the noise in 
the street Krishan, another deceased and the father of juvenile 
8 
Neeraj and Jai Bhagwan son of Krishan. also reached there 
and also started quarreling with Mukesh (PW.9) alleging that 
he threatened Neeraj, son of Krishan. The complainant's father 
Suraj Mal and his uncle Shri Ram also stated to have joined 
the place of occurrence. 
C 
3. The deceased Krishan called his brother Rajinder 
Singh, the appellant herein and asked him to bring his gun as 
otherwise it would have no use. The appellant brought his 
double barrel gun and fired a shot from the corner of the street, 
which hit Suraj Mal in the chest and the second fire shot hit on 
D the left eye of his u
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.