RAVI KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2005] 2 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 04-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAVI KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
M.ARCH 4, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Penal code: 
C 
Section 300, Exception 4-Applicability of-Sudden fight between the 
accused and deceased-Blow on head resulting in death of deceased-Trial 
court and High Court convicting accused under Section 302 /PC-Accused 
pleading applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300--Held: Trial Court and 
High Court not justified in convicting accused under Section 302-Exception 
4 of Section 300 is applicable as accused had not taken undue advantage or 
D acted in cruel or unusual manner-Fight suddenly took place for which both 
parties were equally to be blamed as there was mutua{ provocation and 
aggravation and no previous deliberation or .determination to fight. 
Section 300, Exception 4-Acts done in sudden fight-Word 'fight' not 
E defined in /PC-What amounts to sudden fight is a question of fact-Whether 
a fight is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each 
case. 
F 
G 
H 
Section 300, Exception I and 4-Comparison and distinction between-
Explained. 
Criminal Procedure Code : 
Sections I 54, I 57-FIR and Illaqa report to Magistrate-Deloy in lodging 
and reporting-Held, not fatal if delay not unreasonable and duly explained-
Criminal trial. 
Section 154-First Information Report-Meaning and Significance of-
Discussed. 
Section 157-Illaqa Report-Purpose of-Discussed. 
548 
'-I 
tr
L 
I 
·-
RA VI KUMAR v. ST ATE OF PUNJAB 
549 
Criminal trial : 
Owlar evidence vis-a-vis Medical evidence-EvidentiGJy value of-Held 
: where ocular evidence is cogent and credible, medical evidence to the contrmy 
not to corrode its evidentiGJy value-Evidence. 
A 
Words and phrases-Fight and sudden fight-Meaning of-In the context B 
of Exception 4 of Section 300 !PC. 
Acco"rding to prosecution, quarrel took place between the deceased 
and the appellant-accused. Next day employer of the appellant called 
deceased to settle the dispute. When talks were going on, quarrel between 
appellant and deceased ensued. Appellant picked up dhangu and gave two C 
blows on the head of the deceased and he fell down .. He was taken to 
hospital where he was referred to another hospital. After few hours, he 
died. After the death of deceased, his brother PW-3 lodged FIR. Appellant 
was arrested. On disclosure statement, dhangu was recovered. Trial Court 
convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC. High Court dismissed the · D 
appeal. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that there was 
inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report to the 
lllaqa Magistrate; that an incised wound found on head of deceased was 
not possible with the weapon i.e. dhangu which was alleged to have been E 
used and in the alternate, Section 302 is not applicable as the assaults took 
place in the course of quarrel and Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC would 
apply. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. The evidence on record shows that in the occurrence, 
the deceased was seriously injured. Therefore, the first priority of his 
brothers was to provide immediate medical aid so that his life could be 
saved. He was immediately taken to the Civil Hospital. There the doctor 
after examining him found the condition to be serious and referred him 
to the PGI at Chandigarh where he ultimately died. After his death, PW- G 
3 lodged first information report at the police station. The distance between 
the hospital and the Police Station was few kilometers. The special report 
was received by the lllaqa Magistrate shortly after mid-night. The 
sequence of events shows that there was no unreasonable delay in lodging 
the FIR as the first effort of his brothers was to take the deceased to H 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 
A different hospitals for medical aid. Similarly, there is no unexplained delay 
in sending the special report to special magistrate, as the distance between 
the Police Station and the place where the lllaqa Magistrate was stationed 
was not small. The trial court and the High Court, therefore, rightly held 
tbat there was no delay in either lodging the FIR or sending the special 
B report to the lllaqa Magistrate. (554-A-E; 555-81 
Ram Jag and Ors. v. The State of UP., AIR (1974) SC 606; Pala Singh 
and Anr. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1972) SC 2679 and Sarwan Singh and Ors. 
v. State of Punjab, AIR (1976) SC 2304, referred to. 
. 
I 
C 
1.2. The First Information Report is a report giving informa

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