LexSUKHBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SUKHBIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA B FEBRUARY 20, 2002 [R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: C Section 300, Exception 4--Benefit of Exception-Entitlement of-Absence D of existence of cor.imon object-Accused person is proved to have committed culpa1~lt1 l:omiclde without pre-meditation In a certain fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel-Acts not cruel and of unusual manner-Held, in such a situation accused entitled to ben:tfit under Exception 4 of Section 300. Sections 302 and J 49--Existeiice of common object of unlawful assembly amongst accured j;:H";svns-Findings of High Court regarding sharing of com/11,!HI object-Evidence of witnesses-No enmity between parties-Time gap t'etwee11 quarrel andfight was few minutes-Trial Court on the basis of avide~ce proved by the P'f)!BCution that accused persons shared a common E object conYicr~'tl the accused persons-However, High Court held that all per1cms did not share common object-On appeal, held prosecution could not specifically refer to any of the objects for which accused alleged to have formed ulllawjbl assembly-Hence, findings of High Court cannot be held to be Mally improbable. F Constitution of India, I 950-Article 136-.Speclal leave jurisdiction- Review of evidence for third time-Scope of-Held, unless there is some si!rlaua infin~ity or grave failure of justice, Supreme Court normally refrains from re- appr~ciating the matter. According to the prosecution case, there was an nltcrcation between the G nppdlant a11d son ofone 'L' over a trivul issue. 'L' intervenm c11d cnvulepri to the appelbmt. Thereafter appellant went away declaring thllt ho would teach u lesson. After some time appellant along with other accused person come ut the spot nrmed with weapons and fight ensued. Appellant gave blows with bhala on the chest of 'L' and other accused persons accompanied him. In the H fight the son, wife, father and brother of 'L' also received injuries and 'L' 1152 SUKHBIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARY ANA 1153 d!:d. Fm WllS lodged nnd nfter investigation nppelhlnt 1md the llCCused persocs A were committed for trillL Appellnnt contended thllt he lllong with two other llCCllsed persons cnllsed injuries to tile compleinnnt p:irty nnd others in s:lf defecce. However, remnining eccused persons denied their pnrticipntion and stilted thllt they hod been fnlsely imp!icnted. Trinl Court on being sntisfied thnt the occurrence hnd tnken pince in which llll the nccused pnrticip:ited, B convicted them under Section 302 relld with Section 149 of the Penal Code. However, High Court held thnt nil the nccused persons did not share common object and thus were not liable to be convicted for commission of the main offence with the nid of Section 149 IPC. Hence these cross appeals. Appellant contended thllt llS the occurrence hnd tnken place without C p~meditation, inn sudden fight in the beet of passion upon n sudden quarre~ nppelllmt is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Code. It is further contended thnt the finding of the High Court thnt the nppellant hlls ncted in 11 cruel or unusul!I manner cannot be sustained nfter it is held that the nccused did not hnve common object because the injuries inflicted on the deceased were neither cruel nor of unusual manner. D Appellant-state contended that the High Court was not justified in disturbing the finding of the trial court that all the accused shared the common object and holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the sharing of the common object of all the accused persons. It was suggested that the manner in which the accused came to the spot armed with deadly weapons and the E nature of the injuries inflicted upon the persons of the deceased and other injured persons demonstrated in unequivocal terms that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to comm:t the offences for which they were charged. Disposing of the appeals, the Court F HELD : 1. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the absence of the existence of common object appellant is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in G a cruel or unusual manner and thus his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC. (1166-D-E) 2. The findings of the High Court regar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.