THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND versus SACHENDRA SINGH RAWAT

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 04-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 529
529
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
v.
SACHENDRA SINGH RAWAT
(Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 04, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: Culpable homicide not amounting to
murder – Prosecution case was that an altercation took place
between the victim-deceased and the respondent-accused at the
place of marriage ceremony – Due to intervention of villagers, matter
did not proceed further – After few hours around 12:00 in night,
when victim-deceased was near his house, accused attacked him
by giving blows on his head with the “Danda/Phakadiyat”, a rough
piece of wood – Deceased ran towards his house for safety – Accused
ran after him with “Phakadiyat” in his hand and gave several blows
which resulted in fracture of his head and multiple injuries –
Complainant-wife and mother of the deceased tried to rescue the
deceased but failed – Due to grievous injuries, deceased fell
unconscious – He was taken to hospital where he died after few
days – Trial court held accused guilty under s.302 IPC – High Court
although believed the evidence of all the eye witnesses, however,
held that culpable homicide did not amount to murder; rather it was
a sudden fight which ensued in the heat of passion between the two
and the case fell under the fourth exception to s.300 IPC and
consequently converted the sentence from life imprisonment to ten
years rigorous imprisonment – Aggrieved State filed instant appeal
– Held: The second incident cannot be said to be a result of sudden
fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel – Accused chased
the deceased in the mid night and even after the deceased reached
his house, he was beaten by the accused in front of his house which
was witnessed by his wife – From the multiple injuries sustained by
the deceased, it can be seen that the accused used the “Phakadiyat”
with such a force that it resulted in skull fracture at the frontal
wound on the left side; stitched wounds with 34 stitches with left
side of the skull extended from mid of the left side of the skull along
with coronal sutures of 16 cm; brain lacerated and clots present in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
the frontoparietal and lacerated brain wound extended up to the
frontoparietal and temporal – The case would certainly fall under
Clauses thirdly and/or fourthly to s.300 IPC – Respondent-accused
is guilty for the offence under s.302 IPC and sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has erred in observing and/or
accepting the case on behalf of the accused that the incident had
taken place due to a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel in the mehendi ceremony. The second incident
had not taken place at all during the mehendi ceremony. The
second incident had taken place near the house of the deceased
and that too after the first incident was over, everybody went to
their houses and thereafter at 12:00 in the mid night the second
incident had taken place in which the accused gave several blows
to the deceased by “Phakadiyat” on the head, thigh etc. Therefore,
the High Court has erred in observing that the case would fall
under Fourth exception to Section 300 IPC. [Para 5][536-G-H;
537-A-B]
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 : [1958]
0 SCR 1495; Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State
of Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC 322; Pulicherla Nagaraju v.
State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444; Singapagu Anjaiah
v. State of A.P. (2010) 9 SCC 799 : [2003] 1 Suppl.
SCR 754; State of Rajasthan v. Kanhaiya Lal (2019) 5
SCC 639 : [2019] 5 SCR 569 – relied on.
2. As per Section 300 IPC, if the case falls within Clauses
thirdly and fourthly to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide can be
said to be amounting to murder. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, the High Court has committed a grave
error in observing that culpable homicide did not amount to
murder, by applying exception Fourth to Section 300 IPC.
Exception Fourth to Section 300 IPC ought not to have been
applied by the High Court at all considering the fact that the main
second incident had taken place subsequently at 12:00 in the
night, much after the first incident of altercation was over in the
mehendi ceremony. The impugned judgment and order passed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
by the High Court is unsustainable both, on facts as well as on
law. The respondent-accused is held guilty for the offence under
Section 302 IPC for having k

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