LexSIKANDER @MOHD. SAFIQ versus THE STATE (DELHI ADMN.)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SIKANDER @MOHD. SAFIQ A v. THE ST A TE (DELHI ADMN.) APRIL 6, 1999 (G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-Ss. 302 and 300, Exception 4-Murder of step- mother and sister--No sudden fight-Accused inflicting number of dagge~ blows on the helpless victims-Whether covered under Exception 4 viz. grave C and sudden provocation-Held, No, accused took undue advantage and acted in a most cruel manner-Ingredients of Exception 4 of S.300 not satisfied-Conviction and sentence upheld Words & Phrases 'Fight'-Meaning of in the context of Exception 4 of S. 300 Penal Code, 1860. Appellant-accused was prosecuted for an offence under Sec. 302 of Penal Code. The prosecution case was that, father of the appellant had two wives and there was some property dispute in the family. There was a quarrel between the family members. Accused stabbed his step-mother and step- sister and both of them succumbed to their injuries. Trial Court convicted and sentenced him to death. On appeal, High Court upheld the conviction, but altered the sentence to life imprisonment. Hence the present appeal by the D E accused. F On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the offence was committed during a sudden fight and in a heat of passion, without any premeditation and hence would fall under Exception 4 of Sec. 300 of IPC. It was also submitted that the appellant was the sole earning member and looks G after his disabled father and brothers including the children of his step- mother. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : Ll. The ingredients of Exception 4 of S.300 IPC, that there H 431 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R. A was sudden fight between the accused and deceased and the accused had not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner is not satisfi~d on the facts of the case. Conviction of accused under S. 302 IPC is upheld. [436-G-H; 437-B] B Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217 distinguished. 1.2. There was no sudden fight between the accused and the step- mother or step-sister. Intervention of step-mother at the stage when the co- accused was inflicting injuries on her husband and protesting by saying as C to why the handicapped father was being beaten, would not mean that there was fight between the appellant and the deceased step-mother. Similarly, intervening and entreating the accused not to inflict blows on her mother by deceased step-sister also cannot be termed as "fight". "Fight" postulates a bilateral transaction in which blows are exchanged between the parties. D Further, both the victims were totally unarmed, they had not caused any injury to the accused or co-accused. (436-B-E] E Bhagwan Munjaji Pawade v. State of Maharashtra, [1978) 3 SCC 330 and Narayanan Nair Raghwan Nair v. The State of Travancore-Cochin, AIR (1966) SC 99, relied on. 1.3. Appellant-accused had taken undue advantage and acted in a most cruel manner by inflicting number of dagger blows on his helpless step- mother and step-sister. The injuries found by the Doctor who carried out the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased step-mother had found F in all sixteen incised wounds; similarly, he had noted eleven incised wounds on the dead body of the step-sister. [436-E-H) 2. The fact that the accused and the other family members have reconciled their differences and are staying together or that the accused being the sole earning member of the family would be totally irrelevant on G the question of conviction and sentence of the accused for the offence of murdsr of his step-mother-and step-sister. (436-H; 437-A] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 1993. H From the Judgment and Order dated 20.5.92 of the Delhi High Court in > SIKANDER v. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) [SHAH, J.] 433 Crl. A. No. 109of1991. R.K. Jain and K.V. Venkataraman for the Appellant. Ms. Rekha Pandey and S.N. Terdol for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. The appellant Sikander @ Mohammad Shafiq is convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by judgment and order dated 5th/9th August, 1991 and was sentenced A B to death subject to confirmation by the High Court. Appellant preferred C Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1991 against the conviction and sentence which was partly allowed. The order with regard to the death penalty was set aside and appellant was sent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.