SUKHDEV SINGH versus DELHI STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 01-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUKHDEV SINGH 
v. 
DELHI STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 
SEPTEMBER 1, 2003 
B 
[D0RAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
Perla! Code, 1860. 
Sections 300,304 and BO-Accused shooting deceased with pistol in 
the course of sudden quarrel-On facts, held, no case of grave and sudden 
C provocation made out-Exception 4 to Section 300 held applicable instead 
of Exception I-Section 80 not applicable--Conviction altered to one under 
Section 304 Part II instead of under Section 304 Part I. 
Practice & Procedure-Appellant contending that High Court failed 
to consider plea-High Court Judgment noting that on other argument 
D advanced-Scope of interference-Held, Supreme Court cannot accept plea 
about non-consideration. 
Words & Phrases-"Accident"-Meaning of 
Accused-appellant was attached to PW-3 as Personal Security 
E Officer. Prosecution alleged that one 'G' parked his vehicle opposite 
the gate of office of PW-3 which was objected to by the accused. There 
was an altercation followed by scuffle between the accused and 'G'. The 
accused boarded the vehicle and asked 'G' to take vehicle to Police 
Station and on the way again scuffle.took place between them. During 
the course of scuffle the accused took out his pistol and fired at 'G' in 
F which 'G' was killed and a passer-by injured. Defence of the accused 
was that the deceased, his companion and other drivers assaulted him 
and snatched his pistol and when he grappled with them to recover 
pistol, it went off. Trial court convicted the accused of offences punishable 
under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. In appeal, High 
Court held that Exception I to Section 300 was applicable and altered 
G conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC and from Section 
307 to Section 308 IPC and reduced sentence. Aggrieved by the judgment 
of High Court, the accused has filed the appeal. 
Appellant contended that the High Court failed to consider that 
Section 80 IPC was applicable; and that prosecution version was not 
H established by any witness examined on record. 
224 
L 
SUKHDEV SINGH v. DELHI STA TE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) 225 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court has rightly contended that the accused 
- appellant was the assailant. But the High Court was not justified in 
holding that Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC was applicable. The 
said exception deals with homicide committed in the heat of passion or 
A 
by way of sudden provocation. The test of grave and sudden provocation B 
is whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class of society as 
the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed 
would be so provocated as to Jose self-control. In this case the gunshots 
cannot be said to be the result of grave and sudden provocation. 
(230-F, G, 231-BI 
Philips v. R, (1969) AC 100 (Privy Council), referred to. 
1.2. In the instant case, in course of sudden quarrel, the offender 
fired the shots. The case is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. 
Four requirements are to be satisfied to bring in application of Exception 
c 
4. These are: (i) It was a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; D 
(iii) The act was in a heat of passion; and (iv) The assailant had not 
taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of 
quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or 
started the fight. (231-E, B-D) 
2.1. As regards appellants plea of accident covered under Section E 
80 IPC, the only point which appears to have been urged before the 
High Court is the non-applicability of Section 302, and applicability of 
Section 304 Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the High Court's judgment it 
was clearly noted that no other argument was advanced. It is not for 
this Court to accept the plea about non-consideration. 
(228-C, H, 229-A, Bl F 
2.2. Even otherwise, Section 80 IPC has no application to the facts 
of the case. Section 80 exempts the doer of an innocent or lawful act in 
an innocent and lawful manner from any unforeseen result that may 
ensue from accident or misfortune. If either of these elements is wanting 
the act will not be excused on the ground of accident. An accident is not G 
the same as an occurrence, but something that happens out of the 
normal or ordinary course of things. An effect is said to be accidental 
when the act is not done with the intention of causing it, and its occurrence 
as a consequence of such act is not rn probable t

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