SUKHDEV versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1123 · Decided: 21-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SUKHDEV 
A 
\'. 
ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
JUNE 21, 2007 
[DR. ARinT PASAYA T AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; ss.302, 324 & 326: 
Assault & murder-Accused attacked deceased and others with a knife 
injuring them-Allegedly wife of accused also injured-Deceased succumbed C 
to injures-F.l.R.-Chargesheet-Trial Court found accused guilty of 
committing offences punishable ulss. 302, 324 and 326 and sentenced him 
accordingly-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, held, DWI, wife of the 
accused could not explain as to why she did not report the matter to the 
police immediately and medically examined herself if she was injured in the D' 
incident-In the facts and circumstances of the case both the courts below 
rightly found evidence of the injured witnesses credible and evidence of DW 
1, wife of the accused highly improbable-Hence, accused was rightly 
convicted by the court's below under s.302 !PC-Evidence-Injured eye 
witnesses-Testimony of 
Exception 4 to s. 300 JPC-Applicability of-Held: Not applicable. 
Words and phrases: 
'Sudden fight' and 'undue advantage'-Meaning of in the context of 
E, 
exceptiOn 4 to S.300 JPC. 
F 
PW.3, President of a village was working at a petrol pump, at about 
9.30P.M. on November 3,1994, he heard a noise that the heap of chaff of a 
villager had caught fire, hearing the cry PW3 alongwith his brother, the 
deceased, PW.4 and accused reached the spot to help in extinguishing the 
fire. The accused made an allegation against the deceased that he had set the G 
heap of chaff on fire, when the deceased denied the allegation, there started a 
quarrel between them. Accused then ran inside his house and brought a knife 
and caused blows with it on the body of the deceased and PW4 and injured 
them. Allegedly, when the wife of the accused tried to separate them, she 
1123 
H 
1124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
· A also got injured. The injured were taken to a Hospital, but shortly before 
they reached there, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of 
statement of PW3 as recorded by the police in the Hospital, an FIR was 
registered at police station. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-
mortem examination. Accused was arrested and on his disclosure statement, 
a blood stained knife, the alleged murder weapon was recovered: On 
B completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for an offence 
punishable under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of the deceased 
and under sections 324 and 326 lPC for causing injuries to PW3 and PW4. 
Trial Court found the accused guilty of offences, convicted and sentenced him 
for committing offences u/ss 302, 324 & 326. Appeal filed by the accused 
C was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal. 
Accused-appellant contended that the trial court and the High Court 
should not have placed reliance on the interested version of PWs.3&4; that 
the evidence of DWI was clear and cogent and completely ruled out 
acceptability of pi:osecution version; and that even accepting the prosecution 
· D version, the injuries were inflicted in course of sudden quarrel and, therefore, 
Section 302 has no application. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The trial court and the High Court found the evidence of the 
E injured eye witnesses to be credible. The testimony of an injured witness 
has significant relevance. Though they were examined at length nothing 
brittle in their testimony could be noticed. The evidence of DW-1 is highly 
improbable as was rightly held by the trial court and the High Court. If she 
had been injured in the incident, it was not explained as to why she did not 
F 
report the matter to the police immediately and the medical examination was 
done after about two days. This conduct ofDW-1 who happened to be the wife 
of the accused has been rightly taken note of by the trial court and the High 
Court. (Para7J [1127-F-G) 
2.1. For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it has 
G to be established that the act was committed 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. 
(Para 9) (1128-A) 
2.2. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in 
H it must be found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to 
SUKHDEV v. STATE OF PUNJAB [PASA YAT.J.) 
1125 
-....: 
Section 300, IPC is not d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.