THE STATE OF PUNJAB versus SARWAN SINGH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 19-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE ST A TE OF PUNJAB 
~ 
SAR WAN SINGH 
NOVEMBER 19, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
Ss. 300, 302 and 304-Group fight-Members of both groups sustained 
injuries-One member died as a result of multiple injuries caused by 
C respondent with gandasa-Trial Court and High Court found that four 
injuries inflicted by respondent were responsible for death of victim, but, 
applying Exception(4) to s. 300. Convicted respondent u!s. 304-Held, in 
view of four injuries inflicted on the head of deceased by respondent with 
gandasa, it is obvious that respondent had knowledge that the injuries 
would result i1• death of victim-Respondent had taken undue advantage 
D and acted in a cruel manner-Conviction by courts below 
u/s. 304 set 
aside-Respondent convicted u/s. 302 and sentenced to imprisoment for 
life. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
E 1977of1996. 
F 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.92 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in Crl. A. No. 253 of 1992 
Ranbir Yadav, for R.S. Suri for the Appellant. 
B.B. Vashisht and P. Narasimhan for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
This appeal by special leave relates to nature of the offence committed 
by him. 
H 
The admitted position is that on October 25, 1985 at about 6 a.m. in 
826 
,.. 
STATE OF PB. v. SARWANSINGH 
827 
village Kanlon within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Navashahr, A 
one Santokh Singh and his party and the respondents and their party had a 
dispute on land. They indulged in quarrel as a result of which Sartokh 
Singh died. The courts below recorded a finding that the occurrence had 
taken place at 6.00 p.m. in which both the parties sustained injuries. The 
deceased Santokh Singh died. The courts below recorded a finding that 
the occurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m. in which both the parties B 
sustained injuries. The deceased Santokh Singh received as many as 8 
injuries five of which were on the head. As per the evidence of PW-2, the 
autopsy doctor, he died of the multiple injuries on the head. The injuries 
were inflicted with a gandasa. According to PW-2, those injuries are 
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, it is 
clearly a case under clause thirdly of Section 300, !PC and of murder C 
punishable under Section 302, !PC unless the case is brought in any one of 
the exceptions engrafted is Section 300 !PC. The trial Court and the 
appellate Court have applied Exception (4) to Section 300 which reads as 
under : 
"Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without D 
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a 
sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue 
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner." 
In this case, the courts below found that the four injuries inflicted by E 
the respondent Sarwan Singh were responsible for the death of the deceased. 
It is seen that when Sarwan Singh had inflicted four injuries on the head 
with gandasa which is a heavy weapon, it is obvious that he had the 
knowledge that the injuries would result in death of the deceased. It is 
true that there was a free fight in which both the parties including the 
accused sustained injuries. Obviously, therefore, Section 149 !PC was not F 
rightly applied and this Court refused leave as against the acquittal of 
others. However, the respondent cannot escape the offence. The parties 
had to fight over dispute of land. It is not the case of the accused that he 
had acted in self-defence of him or others and in exercise thereof, he 
inflicted the injuries. Therefore, the right of private defence has not been G 
rightly applied and was not extended to the accused. Under these 
circumstances, the only question that arises is: whether the respondent had 
inflicted injuries without undue advantage and acted in a cruel or unusual 
manner? When the respondent had inflicted four injuries with a gandasa 
on the head, it is implicit that he had taken undue advantage and acted in 
a cruel or unusual manner in inflicting four heavy blows on the head H 
828 
SllPREMECOURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R 
A resulting in death ofSantokh Singh. Under these circumstances, the learned 
Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have committed grave error of 
law in applying Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and giving the respondent 
the benefit hol

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