LexSHAMBHOO SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 85 SHAMBHOO SINGH II. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2008) JULY 22, 2008 ..J [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: A B ss. 304 (Part I) 447, 307 and 324 - Death and injuries C caused - Land dispute between the accused and complain- ant parties - Occurrence took place during quarrel and ex- change of hot words- Conviction by Courts below u/s 302, 447, 307 and 324 - On appeal, held: In view of the fact that the occurrence took place during course of sudden quarrel, con- D viction uls 302 altered to one uls. 304 (Part I) - Conviction under other provisions not interfered with - Sentence of life imprisonment altered to custodial sentence of 10 years. s. 300 Exception 4 - Applicability of - Discussed. s. 300 - Exception 1 and Exception 4 - Distinction be- tween - Discussed. Words and Phrases - 'Sudden quarrel' - Meaning of - In the context of s. 300 /PC. · E F Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having caused death of a person and causing injuries to eye- witnesses. As per prosecution, when the deceased was ploughing his field and other eye-witnesses, brothers, father and mother of the deceased were working in the G field, appellant-accused alongwith his mother and father came and objected to their ploughing the field. A quarrel ensued and there were exchange of hot words. Appel- lant, then stabbed the deceased. He also assaulted the 85 H 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R. A eye-witnesses causing injuries to them. Trial Court plac- ;;ol. ing reliance on the evidence of the injured eye-witnesses convicted the appellant-accused u/ss. 302, 447, 307 and 324 IPC. For the offence u/s 302 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. High Court confirmed the conviction and B sentence. In appeal to this court appellant contended that his ).. conviction u/s 302 IPC was not called for as the occur- rence took place during the course of sudden quarrel. c Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In the background facts, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part I, IPC. Cus- todial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of jus- D tice. The conviction in respect of other offences and the sentences imposed do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. [Para~ 8] [92-D & E] 2.1 For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Sec- tion 300 IPC, it has to be established that the act was com- E milted without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. For the application of Excep- tion 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden F quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advan- tage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as used in the provision means "un-· fair advantage". [PMas 6 and 7] [90-G,H;91-A; 92-B & C] G 2.2 The Fourth Exception deals with a case of pros- ecution not covered by the First Exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The Excep- tion is founded upon the same principle, for in both, there y is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Ex- H ception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case SHAMBHOO SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 87 of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which A clouds men's sober reasons and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding B 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. [Paras 7] [91-A,B,C & D] c 2.3 A "sudden fight" implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable D would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. There is then mutual provoca- tion and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.