RAMBIR versus STATE OF NCT, DELHI

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 06-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
163
RAMBIR
v.
STATE OF NCT, DELHI
(Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 2019)
MAY 06, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 300 exception 4, 302 – Murder –
Husband-appellant strangulated his wife with saria and caused her
death – Testimony of the eye witness-son of the victim, oral evidence
of prosecution witness whose statement was further corroborated,
prosecution witness who had last seen the appellant leaving the
place of incident and two more prosecution witness who confirmed
the presence of the appellant – Conviction of the appellant for
offence u/s. 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the courts
below – On appeal, held: Since the incident occurred in sudden
quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act was committed in a
heat of passion, and having regard to nature and manner of incident,
the act of the victim was not of extreme cruelty, thus, the act of the
appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 – Conviction
of the appellant modified to one u/s.304 Part II and sentence of 10
years’ simple imprisonment imposed.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required :there
must be a sudden fight; there was no premeditation; the act was
committed in a heat of passion; and the offender had not taken
any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. By
applying the above tests, the High Court found that two of the
ingredients were absent so as to bring the case of the appellant
under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. The High Court found
that the act of picking up a ‘saria’ and compressing forcefully the
neck of his wife by the appellant, can, by no stretch of imagination,
be said to be an act committed in a heat of passion. Further it is
held that, the manner in which the appellant compressed his wife’s
neck also depicts an act of extreme cruelty. From the evidence
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 163
163
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
on record it is clear that incident occurred in a sudden fight and
there was no pre-meditation. Even the primary witness PW-7,
the son of the accused and deceased, deposed that he had seen
the appellant strangulating his mother with the ‘saria’ when she
had taken out some money from the appellant’s wallet. It is not
as if ‘saria’ was brought in a pre-planned way to murder the wife
of the appellant. The iron rod (saria) was picked up at the spur of
the moment at the time of incident and used to compress the
neck forcefully. In that view of the matter it was nothing but an
act committed by the appellant in a heat of passion. Having regard
to nature and manner of incident, it cannot be said that act of the
appellant was extremely cruel. Unless it is barbaric, torturous
and brutal, strangulation of the appellant’s wife cannot be said to
be an act of extreme cruelty for denying the benefit of Exception
4 to Section 300 IPC. [Para 13] [168-F-H; 169-A-D]
1.2 The case of the appellant falls within Exception 4 to
Section 300. Having regard to evidence on record, all the four
ingredients which are required to extend the benefit of Exception
4 to Section 300, apply to the facts of the case on hand. Since the
occurrence in sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation,
the act of the appellant-accused would fall under Exception 4 to
Section 300. As such, the conviction recorded against the
appellant u/s 302 is set aside and the conviction of the appellant-
accused u/s. 302 IPC is modified, as the one u/s. 304 Part II
and a sentence of 10 years’ simple imprisonment is imposed.
[Para 14] [169-E-H; 170-A]
Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1989)
2 SCC 217 : [1989] 1 SCR 941 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
 [1989] 1  SCR  941
relied on.
Para 14
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 839 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2017 of the High Court
of  Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2012.
Shikhil Suri, Shiv Kumar Suri, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
165
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Ashok Panigrahi, P. S. Sudheer, Ms. Kirti
Dua, B.V. Balaram Das, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated
11.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal
Appeal No.1316 of 2012, by which High Court has dismissed the criminal
appeal, confirm

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