SALIM SAHAB versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 05-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SALIMSAHAB 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
DECEMBER 5, 2006 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302 and 324: 
Murder-Accused assaulted a relative with sharp edged scissors-
Victim succumbed to the injuries-Trial Court found accused guilty of offences C 
under Section 324 !PC and sentenced him accordingly-On appeal, High 
Court held him guilty of commission of offence u/s. 302 and sentenced him 
to life imprisonment-On appeal, Held: Relationship is not a fact to affect 
credibility of witness-Though accused attacked deceased with a sharp 
edged weapon but it was not a very big size weapon-Hence, in the facts and D 
circumstances of the case, Section 304 Part II and not Section 302 !PC would 
be applicable-conviction altered accordingly. 
Exception 1 and 4 to Section 300-Distinction between-Applicability 
of-Discussed. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Evidentiary value of relative witness-Discussed. 
Accused-appellant harassed his wife, therefore, his father-in-law took 
E 
her with him. On the date of the incident, the accused had visited the house of F 
his father-in-law (PW-1) and asked him to send his wife back and then started 
quarreling with other family members. On seeing it, his wife resented the 
conduct of the accused-husband and turned him out of the house. The accused 
objected and took out a pair of scissors and assaulted her in abdomen and 
chest with the result she fell down unconscious, and there was profuse bleeding 
from the wounds. When she was taken to the Hospital, on the way, she G 
-succumbed to the injuries. Accused tried to run away from the place of 
incident, but was caught by PW-2. Accused assaulted him also and extricated 
himself. An F.I.R. was lodged. The matte·r was investigated by the Police and 
charge-sheet submitted. Trial Court found accused guilty of commission of 
SI 
H 
.,, 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A offence in terms of Section 324 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. On appeal, 
High court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 
302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. 
It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and 
make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea 
of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful 
approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. 
c 
(SS..G, H; 56-AJ 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; Guli 
Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1197 4) 3 SCC 698 and Vadivelu Thevar 
v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614, relied on. 
D 
1.2. The ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently 
being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. 156-EI 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; 
Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP., AIR (1965) SC 202; State of Punjab v. Jagir 
Singh, AIR (1973) SC 2407; Lehna v. State of Haryana, 12002] 3 SCC 76 and 
E Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa, (2002] 8 SCC 381, relied on. 
2.1. Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden 
fight. The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the 
first exception, after which its place would have been more 11ppropriate. The 
exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of 
F premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception I there is total deprivation 
of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which 
clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not 
otherwise do. 157-E, Fl 
2.2. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception I; but the injury 
G done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 
deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, 
or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the 
quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts 
them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A 'sudden fight' implies mutual 
H 
provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly 
.... 
- ... 
SALIM SAHAB v. ST ATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
53 
not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.