RAMESH KUMAR @ TONI versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 22-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 67 
~ 
RAMESH KUMAR @ TONI 
A 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2009 
APRIL 22, 2009 
B 
-
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) 
r 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
ss. 300, Exception 4 and s.304 (part-I) - Culpable homi-
cide not amounting to murder- During an altercation accused c 
giving a spade b low on head of his rival resulting in victim's 
death - conviction by trial court u/s 302 affirmed by High Court 
- Held: Prosecution story itself spells out that all conditions of 
Exception is to s.300 are satisfied - conviction converted to 
\ 
s.304 (part I) with custodial sentence of seven years. 
D 
-
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal 
No.875 of 2009 
From the Judgement and Order dated 29.04.2008 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA 
E 
No. 272 of 2008. 
Mahabir Singh, Rakesh Dahiya, Nikhil Jain, Ajay Pal, with 
? 
him for the Appellants. 
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', T.V. George, for the Respondents. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
F 
Leave granted. 
~ 
This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court dated 29.4.2008 whereby the appeal filed G 
by the present appellant against the judgment of conviction 
recorded by the trial court for an offence punishable under 
Section 302 IPC, has been dismissed. 
The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-
67 
H 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
... 
A 
The incident happened on 28th September, 1996. The 
deceased Rajinder Pal was a student of the l.T.I., Ambala. His 
mother Shakuntla PW.8 and uncle Sunder PW.9 had gone to 
the fields to harvest the maize crop in the morning. At about 
4.00 P.M. the deceased took tea for his mother and uncle. At 
B about 5.00 P.M. all three were returning to the village with the 
deceased going ahead by 10-15 paces. As the deceased was 
, 
walking through the vacant field of the accused, the appellant 
" 
abused him for having entered his field. The deceased also 
abused the appellant in return. On this, the appellant who was 
c holding a kassi (spade) while mending the ridges of the field 
inflicted one blow on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, the 
appellant ran away along with his weapon. Shakuntla and Sunder 
removed the injured to a clinic at the bus stand, but they were 
advised to take him to Ambala. Accordingly, the injured was 
D taken to Ambala, where he died in the Emergency Ward at about 
8.40 P.M. The trial court relying on the evidence of the two eye 
witnesses convicted the accused appellant for an offence 
punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to 
undergo imprisonment for life. As already mentioned above, the 
E order of conviction and sentence has been maintained by the 
High Court. 
When this matter came up for hearing before this Court on 
11.9.2008, notice was issued confined to the nature of the 
offence only. The learned counsel for the respondent has also 
F put in appearance and we have heard their submissions on this 
limited score. 
Mr. Mahabir Singh, the learned senior counsel for the 
appellant has pointed out that the case of the appellant would 
fall within e'Xception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC and since the 
G said case Was not one of murder but culpable homicide not 
amounting to murder, it would be punishable under Section 304 
of the IPC. 
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has, 
H however, submitted that both the trial court as well as the High 
.f 
RAMESH KUMAR @ TONI V. STATE OF HARYANA 
69 
l 
Court had rejected this argument and held that the case related 
A 
to a murder. 
Exception 4 to Section 300 reads as under:-
"Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without 
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a 8 
sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue 
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner''. 
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that 
culpable homicide is not murder (i) if it is committed without 
premeditation (2) in a sudden fight (3) in the heat of passion c 
upon a sudden quarrel and (4) without the offender having taken 
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner, 
We find that the prosecution story itself spells out that all 
these conditions are satisfied in the present case. As per the 
eye witnesses, PW.8 and PW.9, the incident had happened when o 
the deceased accompanied by the two witnesses were passing 
through the vacant field of the accused, the appellant

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