SURAIN SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 824 · Decided: 10-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
. [2017] 2 S.C.R. 824 
A 
SURAIN SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2284 of2009) 
B 
APRIL 10,2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 300 Exception 4, 30-1 Part JI, 302, 307, 32-1 - Sudden 
c 
fight - Murder - Bitler hostilfty between the warring factions to 
which accused and deceased belonged - Criminal litigation between 
these factions - Scuffle between the parties in the court when 
appellant-accused objected to the prese11ce of member of the 
opposite side -Appellant-accused at once.took out his Kirpa11 (used 
by 'Amritdhari Sikhs) a11d started giving blows to the opposite party. 
D 
resulting i11 deat/1 of two - Conviction 1tlss. 302, 307, 324 ·and 
sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine, by the courts below 
- On appeal, held: Where, 011 a".sudden quarrel, a perso11 in the 
heat of the mo111e11t picks up a weapo11 which is handy a11d causes 
injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit 
E 
of Exception -I provided he has not acted cruelly - On facts, attack 
was not premeditated a11d it was because of the spur of the moment 
and without any i11te11tio11 to cause death - Weapon used by the 
appellam-accused was a small Kirpa11 - It is clear from the materials 
011 record that the incident was in a sudden fight and the appella11r-
accused had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel 
F 
ma11ner - It can1101. be said that the appellant-accused had any 
imention of causing the death of the deceased when he committed 
the act in question - lnfident took place out of grave and sudden 
. provocation - All requirements ttls.300 Exception 4 satisfied, thus, 
the accused entitled to the benefit of s. 300 Exception 4 - Accused 
G 
to be convicted ttls. 30-1 Part II and sentenced to imprisonment for 
10 years. 
· s. JOO Exception 4 - Invocation of - Necessary ingredients -
Explained. 
s. 304 Part I and Part II - Difference. between - Held: If 
H 
there is iment and knowledge then the same would be a case of s. 
824 
. SURAIN SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
825 
304 Part I - If it is only a case of knowledge and not inteption to 
A 
· cause murder and bodily injury then the sa11ie would fall u/s,., 304 
Part IL 
' 
Disposing of the. app~al, the, Court · 
. HELD: 1.1 Exception 4 to Section 300 lPC applies in the 
absence of any premeditation. This is very clear from the wordings 
of the Exception itself. The exception contemplates that the 
sudden fight shall start upon the heat of passion on a .sudden 
·quarrel. The fourth exception to Section 300 IPC covers·acts 
done in a sudden fighL The .said Exception deals with a case of 
prov~cation not covered by the first exception, after which its 
place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is 
founded. upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of 
premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception lthere is total 
deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only 
that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges 
them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is 
provocation in Exception 4 as in E~ception 1, but the_injury done 
is not the direct consequence of t.!iat provocation •. In fact, 
B 
c 
D 
Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow 
' may,have·been struck, or some provocation given in the origin 
of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, 
E 
yet the subsequent 'coudui:t or both parties puts them in respect' 
ofguilt up'on an equal footing. A "sudden fight" implies mutual 
provocation and blows on .each side. ·The homicide committed is 
then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor could in 
. such cases the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it.were 
so, the Exception niore appropriatety'applicable would be 
' Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination 
to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for 'which both parties are 
more or less ~to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, 
but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would 
not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual 
provocation and aggravation, and it is difficuit to apportion the 
share of blame which attaches to each fighter. [Para 7) (831-H; 
832-A-F) 
. 
' 
'' '' 
1.2 The help or Exception 4 i:an be io"vok~d if death ,is 
c:aused (a) without premeditation, (b} in a sudden !ight, (c) without 
F 
G 
H 
826 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 

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