STATE OF PUNJAB versus JAGTAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 26-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 494 
A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
JAGTAR SINGH AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2003) 
B 
JULY 26, 2011 
. ... 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- s.304 Part-I r/w s.34 IPC and s.300, 
First exception -Culpable homicide not amounting to murder 
c - Case of grave and sudden provocation - Four accused -
Accused-respondents allegedly killed their sister 'P' and her 
lover 'G' - Bodies of the two deceased found in the courtyard 
of the house of the accused - PW5 claimed that he had last 
seen 'G' when he was being taken away by the respondents 
D on the pretext of serving him liquor - Trial court accepted the 
evidence of PW5 and convicted the respondents uls.302 r/w 
s.34 and sentenced them to life imprisonment - High Court, 
however, found the evidence of PW5 to be unreliable and on 
the basis of the post-mortem report that semen was found in 
~ 
E the vaginal swabs of 'P', came to the conclusion that on the 
date of incident 'G' himself must have sneaked into the house 
of the accused persons and must have had sexual 
intercourse with 'P' and on seeing them in a compromising 
position, the accused persons must have killed them, and that 
thus it was a case of grave and sudden provocation and 
, 
F 
-
accordingly altered the conviction to uls. 304 Part I r/w s. 34 and 
converted the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for five 
years - On appeal, held: There was no error in the approach 
of the High court in disbelieving the evidence of PW5 - Also, 
G no reason to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the High 
Court that the offence was committed due to grave and 
' 
sudden provocation and would fall under first explanation to 
s.300 and would amount to culpable homicide not amounting 
to murder- Thus, the offence would be covered under s.304 
H 
494 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. JAGTAR SINGH AND ORS. 
495 
, . 
Part-I rlw s. 34 - However, the incident in question took place A 
18 years back - Further, considering the fact that the accused 
persons had not even crossed the age of 25 years at the time 
of the incident and the fact that they have already undergone 
~ -~ 
rigorous imprisonment for five years and have come out of 
jail, quantum of sentence not interfered with by Supreme 
B 
Court. 
According to the prosecution, the four accused 
persons killed their sister - 'P' and the brother of PW4 -
'G' by strangulation because 'P' had sexual relations with c 
'G'. The dead bodies of 'G' and 'P' were found in the 
~ 
courtyard of the house of the accused. PW5 stated that 
prior to the incident, when he was sleeping in the 
-; 
threshing floor of his wheat field for guarding the wheat, 
he saw the accused persons coming there in a drunken 
D 
condition and taking away 'G' with them on the pretext 
of serving him liquor. Accused 'N' pleaded that on the 
night of the incident he heard some muffled sound from 
the court yard and that when he went there, he saw 'G' 
strangulating 'P' and in order to save 'P' from the clutches 
of 'G', he picked up a rope lying nearby, put it around the 
E 
neck of 'G' and strangulated him; however in the 
meanwhile, 'G' had already strangulated 'P'. The trial court 
negated the plea of the defence and accepted the 
• 
evidence of PW5 and accordingly convicted the accused 
under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to 
F 
undergo imprisonment for life. 
In appeal, the High Court found the evidence of PW5 
to be unreliable and rejected the same. However, the High 
~ 
Court, on the basis of the post-mortem report that semen 
was found in the vaginal swabs of deceased 'P', came to 
G 
the conclusion that it was deceased 'G' who himself 
sneaked into the house of the accused persons and 
must have had sexual intercourse with 'P' and on seeing 
them in a compromising position, the accused persons 
H 
must have killed them. On this basis, the High Court 
1¥ 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R 
A came to the conclusion that even if this was proved, it 
was a case of grave and sudden provocation and as such 
it could not be a case of murder and would come under 
Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC on the basis 
of first exception to Section 300 IPC. Therefore, the High 
B Court converted the sentence of the accused to rigorous 
imprisonment for five years each. The State filed the 
instant appeal against the order of the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD:1. The contention raised by the State that the 
version of PWS was natur

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