Death Due to Grave, Sudden Provocation Not Cruel Act of Murder: SC
Death due to "grave and sudden provocation" could not be termed as a "cruel act" of murder, the Supreme Court has said while reducing the life term of a man to 10-year-jail term in a homicidal case.
File photo of the Supreme Court of India.
New Delhi: Death due to "grave and sudden provocation" could not be termed as a "cruel act" of murder, the Supreme Court has said while reducing the life term of a man to 10-year-jail term in a homicidal case.
A bench comprising justices A K Sikri and R K Agrawal granted the relief to Punjab resident Surain Singh who had filed an appeal against a 2008 judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana which had confirmed a 1998 trial court verdict awarding life imprisonment to him.
"Thus, in entirety, considering the factual scenario of the case on hand, the legal evidence on record and in the background of legal principles laid down by this court in the cases referred to supra, the inevitable conclusion is that the act of the accused was not a cruel act and the accused did not take undue advantage of the deceased," the court said. It noted that "the scuffle took place in the heat of passion" and the accused was entitled to benefit of exception 4 under Section 300 IPC.
It said that accused's appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 part II (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of IPC, instead of section 302 (punishment for murder) IPC.
"Hence, the sentence of imprisonment for 10 years would meet the ends of justice," the court said.
The bench reached to the conclusion after noting that there was bitter hostility between the warring factions to which the accused and the deceased belonged and that the attack was not premeditated and preplanned.
"Criminal litigation was going on between these factions. It is also proved from the material on record that the attack was not premeditated and preplanned. Both the parties were present in the court of executive magistrate, Faridkot at the relevant time with regard to the proceedings under Section 107/151 of IPC (in a separate case). When the accused objected the presence of a member of the opposite side, the scuffle started between the parties which resulted into death of two persons.
"The conduct of the appellant-accused that he at once took out his Kirpan and started giving blows to the opposite party proves that the attack was not premeditated and it was because of the spur of the moment and without any intention to cause death. The occasion for sudden fight must not only be sudden but the party assaulted must be on an equal footing in point of defence, at least at the onset," it said.
"The injury intended by the accused and actually inflicted by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, must be determined in each case on the basis of the facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the injuries caused were the result of blow with a small Kirpan and it cannot be presumed that the accused had intended to cause the inflicted injuries," it said.
According to the prosecuting, in a fight which followed heated arguments between the families of the accused and the deceased in Faridkot in 1995, Singh attacked victims' family, injuring several of them.
The injured were taken to a hospital where Harbans Singh succumbed to his injuries, following which an FIR was lodged.
Recommended For You
- Amazon Echo Input Review: Proof That The Simplest Things Can Make The Maximum Impact
- Box Office: Manikarnika Crosses Rs 100 Cr Mark, Gully Boy Likely to Enter the Club
- Mamma, Give Me a Break, Says Priyanka Chopra When Madhu Chopra Asked Her About Pregnancy Rumours
- Pakistani Artistes Banned From Bollywood, SRK's Daughter Wants to Date a South Korean Singer
- Sidhu Vs Majithia In Punjab Assembly
- 01 d
- 12 h
- 38 m
- 09 s