Manjit Singh Vs State Ofpb.

Manjit Sin g h @ Sahib assails judgment d a ted 01.05.2004 passed by lear n ed Sessions J u dge, Jalandhar, vide which t h e trial Court while holding h i m guilty of h aving committed offences u n der Sections 302 & 323 I P C, sentenced h im as under:

¶12

Offen ce	Imprisonment	Fin e
302 IP C	Life imprisonment	Rs un .1000/-. In default of fine, to dergo RI for three months
323 IP C	RI for 6 months	Rs un .500/-. In default of fine, to dergo RI for one month

¶13

The matter arises out of FIR No.137 dat e d 25.06.2002 registered at Pol i ce Station Sh a hkot, under Sections 302/323 I PC (Ex.PL/2), at the instance of Sarwan Si n gh. The translated gist of S a rwan Singh’s statement (Ex. P L) leading to F IR reads as under:

¶14

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶16

( 2 )

¶17

“I a m a resident of Lakhsian Patti, Villa g e Malsian and am an agriculturist. I have two sons and two daughters, w h o are all married. My eldest s on Hard i al Singh is residing with me at th e ‘Dera’ . Today, at about 11.00 P M , when I, my son Hardial Singh as well a s other members of the family w e re sleep i ng at our ‘Dera’ , Manjit Singh @ Sahib, who is co-brother ( Sandu ) of my y o unger son Amrik Singh and resi d es with his maternal uncle, came to our ‘ D era’ and while knocking the g ate, hurled abuses. I and my s on Hard i al Singh opened he gate. Manj i t Singh went towards the road a nd when we came near him, Manjit Sing h gave a blow from small hand a x e, whic h he was holding in his hand, on th e head of my son Hardial Singh, w ho fell d o wn. When I stepped ahead to sa v e my son, then Manjit Singh gav e a blow with axe hitting me near my right e ye-brow. I raised alarm upon wh i ch my o t her son Amrik Singh and other m embers of family came to the s p ot, upon which Manjit Singh and his two c ompanions, whom I can recogniz e if they are produced before me, sat in a ‘Maruti’ van bearing registrat i on No.J K E-9378 and attempted to escape. However, on account of haste, t h eir vehic l e got stuck in the fields of paddy. After leaving the van, Manjit Si n gh and h is companions ran away from the spot on foot. The reason for qua r rel is th a t my younger son Amrik Sing h and Manjit Singh are co-broth e rs ( San d u ). Their father-in-law had expi r ed and they have no brother-in-l a w. How e ver, their mother-in-law was ha v ing 7 acres of land and a house. Manj i t Singh used to press upon her to t ransfer the said house and land in h is name. On account of said animosity, M anjit Singh and his companions h a ve give n beatings and have killed my son Gurdial Singh and have also inju r ed me. I have got my statement recorded. Action be taken.”

¶18

The afores a id statement of Sarwan Singh w as recorded in the Civil Hospi t al, Shahkot b y ASI Sukhjit Singh, who had gone to the Civil Hospital upon receipt of i ntimation from the hospital a u thorities regarding admission of Hardial Si n gh (deceased). After recordin g the statement, the same was s e nt to the polic e station for lodging of FIR. In q uest proceedings were conduct e d. The dead b ody was subjected to post-m o rtem examination. ASI Suk h jit Singh ther e after went to the spot and prep a red a rough site plan of the pl a ce

¶19

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶21

( 3 )

¶22

of occurre n ce. Blood stained soil was li ft ed from the place of occurren c e. Maruti Va n bearing registration No.JKE-9 3 78 was also taken into possessi o n. Statements of witnesses were recorded in t e rms of Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶23

It is furthe r the case of prosecution that th e accused was produced by Jas b ir Singh, Sar p anch on 04.07.2002 before In s pector Mandip Singh, who par t ly investigate d the case. As per prosecutio n , the remaining investigation w as carried out by SI Kulwant Singh before w h om the accused allegedly mad e a disclosure s tatement as regards concealme n t of axe, which he got recove r ed from the n ominated place and the same was taken into possession v i de recovery m e mo Ex.PS/2.

¶24

Upon con c lusion of investigation, challa n was presented against accu s ed Manjit Sin g h on 03.08.2002 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nak o dar, who committed the case t o the Court of Sessions vide or d er dated 26.0 8 .2002. Learned Sessions Judge , Jalandhar framed charges agai n st the accus e d for offence punishable u n der Sections 302/323 IPC on 07.09.2002 to which he pleaded not guilty a nd claimed trial.

¶25

The prosec u tion in order to establish its c a se examined as many as 15 P W s. The gist of t heir testimonies is being briefl y referred to herein under:-

¶26

PW-1 HC Sukhjit Singh, who is a form a l witness, tendered into evide n ce his affidavit Ex.PA, wherein he de p osed that he was posted as M H C, P.S. Shahkot on 25.06.2002 and t hat on the said day, ASI Suk h jit Sin g h had deposited with him on e parcel containing blood stai n ed soi l apart from other case property a nd that on 08.07.2002, one par c el co n taining axe was deposited wit h him by SI Kulwant Singh. H e fur t her deposed that after preparin g a docket from the office of S S P, Jal a ndhar on 17.07.2002, the case property was handed over to H C Ind e r Singh for the purpose of de p ositing the same in the office of

¶27

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶29

( 4 )

¶30

FS L , Chandigarh, but could not b e deposited on account of cert a in obj e ctions and it was subsequen t ly on 01.08.2002 that the c a se pro p erty was again sent to the offi c e of FSL, Chandigarh, which w as de p osited the same day through H C Inder Singh and that as long as the case property remained in h i s possession, the same was n ot ta m pered with.

¶31

PW-2 Co n stable Gurdev Lal, who is a formal witness, tendered i n to evi d ence his affidavit Ex.PB, wher e in he deposed that on 25.06.20 0 2, wh i le he was posted at Police Stati o n Shahkot, ASI Sukhjit Singh h ad ha n ded over to him and to Daljit Singh the dead body of Har d ial Sin g h for getting the post-mortem e xamination conducted and that he acc o rdingly got the needful done.

¶32

PW-3 Dr. Ajay Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nakodar, who h ad co n ducted post-mortem examinati o n on the dead body of Har d ial Sin g h on 25.06.2002, proved the p ost-mortem report as Ex.PC. H e des c ribed three injuries found on t he dead body and opined that as per his opinion the cause of d e ath was due to neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock due to in j ury No.3 (on parietal regi o n) ind i vidually or in combination w ith other injuries, which w e re suf f icient to cause death in ordinar y course of nature.

¶33

PW-4 Dr. Vijay Kumar, Medical Officer, SHC Bhuller, PHC Shahkot, w ho ha d medico legally examined Sar w an Singh on 25.06.2002, pro v ed his MLR as Ex.PF, wherein he de s cribed three injuries found on h is in

¶34

per s on and stated that injuries co u ld be a result of kulhari (axe) cas e used from its reverse side.

¶35

PW-5 Ha r i Singh, Patwari, proved a cop y of jamabandi as Ex.PH regarding ow n ership of Gurnam Kaur.

¶36

PW-6 Co n stable Gurdev Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered i n to evi d ence his affidavit Ex.PJ, wher e in he deposed that on 26.06.20 0 2, he w as posted on general duty at P .S.Shahkot and that SI Mukhtiar Sin g h had handed over to him spe c ial reports of the present case a nd

¶37

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶39

( 5 )

¶40

tha t he had delivered the special r e ports to the Illaqa Magistrate a nd to o ther higher officers.

¶41

PW-7 Co n stable Daljit Singh, who is al s o a formal witness, tendered i n to evi d ence his affidavit Ex.PK, wher e in he deposed that on 25.06.20 0 2, AS I Sukhjit Singh had handed over to him and to Constable Gur d ev Lal, the dead body of Hardial S i ngh for getting the post-mort e m ex a mination conducted and that he accordingly got the needful don e .

¶42

PW-8 Sar w an Singh, who is the compla i nant in the present case, narra t ed the occurrence in the same manne r as stated by him in the FIR. H e spe c ifically stated that on the da y of occurrence, the accused h ad kn o cked at the door of their hous e and had hurled abuses and w h en he alongwith his son Hardial Sin g h opened the door, Manjit Si n gh we n t towards the road and when t h ey went near him (Manjit Sing h ), the n he gave a blow with gandassi on the head of Hardial Singh a nd wh e n he (Sarwan Singh) stepped forward to save his son, then t he acc u sed gave a gandassi blow t o him as well which hit on h is for e head above the right eye.

¶43

PW-9 A m rik Singh, son of the complai n ant, who is also an eye-witness, sta t ed about the occurrence in the s a me manner as stated by his fat h er Sar w an Singh (PW-8).

¶44

PW-10 Ins p ector Mandip Singh stated that he had partly investigated the c a se dur i ng the course of which he arr e sted Manjit Singh on 04.07.20 0 2, wh o had been produced before hi m by Jasbir Singh, Sarpanch. H e sta t ed that upon completion of investigation, challan has b e en pre s ented by him.

¶45

PW-11 A m ritpal Singh, Patwari Halqa, sta t ed that he had prepared scaled site pla n by visiting the spot and prove d the same as Ex.PO.

¶46

PW-12 HC Inder Singh, who is a formal w itness, tendered into evidence h is affidavit Ex.PQ, wherein he de p osed that on 22.07.2002, M H C Su k hjit Singh had handed over to him two parcels containing blood stained soil and axe for depositin g the same in the office of F S L,

¶47

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶49

( 6 )

¶50

Ch a ndigarh, but could not be deposited on account of so m e obj e ctions. He further deposed th a t on 01.08.2002, the parcels w e re ag a in handed over to him for de p ositing the same in the office of FS L , Chandigarh, which he accor d ingly deposited on the same d ay an d that as long as the parcels re m ained in his possession, the sa m e we r e not tampered with

¶51

PW-13 SI Kulwant Singh stated that o n 25.06.2002, he accompan i ed Inv e stigating Officer Surjit Singh t o the place of occurrence and h ad par t ly investigated the case. He st a ted that the accused was arres t ed by SHO Mandip Singh on 04.07.2002 and that during the course of his interrogation on 08.07.2002 i n the presence of HC Balwin d er Sin g h and Constable Mangat Raj, h e disclosed that he had concea l ed the Kulhari (axe) near the house o f Gurnam Kaur, which he later g ot rec o vered by leading the police p arty to the disclosed place. H e fur t her deposed with regard to the i n vestigation conducted by him.

¶52

PW-14 ASI Sukhjit Singh, who had initi a lly conducted investigation in t he ma t ter and had recorded the state m ent of the complainant leading to lod g ing of FIR, stated with regard to the investigation conducted by hi m . Apart from proving various d ocuments/memos prepared during the course of investigation, he sta t ed with regard to the conduct of inq u est proceedings and also wit h regard to taking into possession blo o d stained soil from the place o f occurrence.

¶53

PW-15 Su k hwinder Singh, Clerk in the of f ice of DTO, Kapurthala, produ c ed the record pertaining to transfer o f registration pertaining to vehi c le be a ring registration No.JKE-937 8 and stated that the same w as ent e red in the name of Joginder Si n gh.

¶54

Upon clos u re of the prosecution evidenc e , statements of the accused w as recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., w herein he denied the entire case of prosecutio n and pleaded false implication . The accused, however, did n ot lead any ev i dence in his defence.

¶55

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶56

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶57

( 7 )

¶58

The learne d trial Court, upon marshallin g the evidence brought on reco r d, held that the prosecution had fully establis h ed the charges framed against t he accused an d consequently, held him guil t y for having committed offen c es under Secti o ns 302 & 323 IPC vide impug n ed judgment.

¶59

Learned counsel for the appellant, while a ssailing the impugned judgme n t, submitted t h at he has falsely been implic a ted in the present case apparen t ly on account the animosity between compl a inant’s son Amrik Singh and t he accused, w h ich has been stated in the FIR itself. Learned counsel submit t ed that the m a nner of occurrence indicates t h at at best it is a case where t he accused ha d hurled some abuses outside t h e house of the deceased and h ad left from t h ere and it was subsequently t hat Sarwan Singh (complaina n t) accompani e d by his eldest son Hardial Sin g h (deceased) opened the gate a nd walked upto the road to the place slightl y away from the house where t he occurrence is alleged to have taken place, w hich would clearly indicate tha t it is not the accused, who had initiated th e alleged fight. Learned coun s el further su b mitted that both the eye-wit n esses i.e. PW-8 Sarwan Si n gh (complaina n t) and Amrik Singh in any c a se are interested witnesses being father and brother of Hardial Singh (dec e ased) and since the complain a nt himself says that there was some kind of e n mity between them, therefore, i t is apparent th a t on account of said alleged en m ity, the accused has been fals e ly implicated.

¶60

Opposing t h e appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case ba s ed on direct e vidence wherein two PWs i.e. PW-8 Sarwan Singh and P W -9 Amrik Sin g h have given a consistent acco u nt of the occurrence and that b o th

¶61

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶62

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶63

( 8 )

¶64

of them ar e natural witnesses inasmuch a s they were residing in the sa m e house as t h e deceased being his father an d brother. Learned State coun s el submitted t hat in these circumstances, th e findings of guilt as have b e en recorded b y the trial Court do not suffer f r om any infirmity and ought to be upheld.

¶65

We have c o nsidered rival submissions ad d ressed before this Court and w i th the assistance of learned counsel have also p erused the record of the case.

¶66

It is appo s ite to first of all refer to t h e medical evidence led by t he prosecutio n as regards alleged homicidal d eath of Hardial Singh. PW-3 D r. Ajay Kum a r, who had conducted the post - mortem examination on the d e ad body of H a rdial Singh, described the inj u ries found on the dead body as

¶67

under:

¶68

“1. A br o wnish black contusion measuring 5 cm x 3 cm was present in the left mam m ary area.

¶69

A br o wnish black linear abrasion meas u ring 5 cm x .5 cm was present on t he left s i de of the chest 4 cm medial to left nipple.

¶70

An i n cised wound measuring 6 cm x 1. 5 cm x 2.5 cm was present on the l eft parie t al region. Wound was obliqu e ly placed and 1 cm from midl i ne unde r lying bone was cut.”

¶71

A perusal of the description of injuries sho w s that while injuries No.1 & 2 a re merely in t h e nature of abrasions, injury N o.3 is in the nature of an inci s ed wound me a suring 6 cm x 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the left parietal region. P W -3 Dr. Ajay Ku mar further stated that underl y ing bone was found to be cut and brain matte r was inflamed and torn and a h a emotoma measuring 5 cm x 3 c m was prese n t in the surrounding area. U pon being shown the recove r ed weapon, P W -3 Dr. Ajay Kumar opined th a t possibility of injury No.3 having

¶72

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶73

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶74

( 9 )

¶75

been cause d with said weapon could not b e ruled out. He further opined t h at in his opin i on the cause of death was du e to neurogenic and haemorrha g ic shock due t o injury No.3 (on parietal regi o n) individually or in combination with other i njuries, which were sufficient t o cause death in ordinary course of nature.

¶76

The witnes s was briefly cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be elicited during the co u rse of his cross-examination so as to either d o ubt his veracity or his opinion. The evidence and the description of injuries a re clearly in tune with the ocul a r version as per which the accu s ed is alleged t o have inflicted a blow with a n axe on the head of the deceas e d. As such, we find that the medical evidenc e led by the prosecution is in t u ne with the ca s e of prosecution regarding an i n jury having been inflicted with an axe on the h ead of the deceased leading to h is death.

¶77

Coming to the ocular version, we find t h at it is the specific case of t he prosecutio n that on the day of occurrence i.e. 24.06.2002 at about 11.00 P M , the accuse d had knocked the door of the h o use of complainant while hurling abuses and when Sarwan Singh (compla i nant) and his son Hardial Si n gh (deceased) opened the gate, the accused proceeded towards the road. A perusal of t he site plan Ex.PU shows tha t the house of the complainant is situated in t he fields, a little away from th e road although the fields abut t he road. The point ‘A’, where the occurren c e had taken place would be a t a distance of about 25-30 feet from the gate of house of complainant. As p er the FIR, w hen Sarwan Singh (complai n ant) and his son Hardial Si n gh (deceased) w ent towards the accused, who w as on road and reached near hi m ,

¶78

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶79

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶80

( 10 )

¶81

accused M a njit Singh gave a blow with an axe on the head of Hardial Sin g h. It is furthe r the case of prosecution that w hen the complainant tried to s a ve his son Ha r dial Singh, the accused inflicte d a blow to him as well on his f a ce near his right eye-brow. When Sarwan Si n gh (complainant) stepped into t he witness-bo x as PW-8, he stated identically t o this effect. The relevant extr a ct from his st a tement reads as under:

¶82

“… … …….He came to our Dera and k n ocked our outer door and he abu s ed us, a t which I and my son Hardial Si n gh opened the gate and came o ut. Manj i t Singh went towards the road. I and Hardial Singh went near Ma n jit Sing h . Manjit Singh gave a gandassi blow which he was holding in his h a nd on th e head of my son Hardial Singh, a t which my son Hardial Singh fell on the g r ound on receipt of injury, I step p ed forward to save my son, he t h en gave me a gandassi blow which hi t on the forehead above the ri g ht eye … ……..”

¶83

The other e ye-witness, namely, PW-9 A m rik Singh also stated identically. The releva n t extract from his statement rea d s as under:

¶84

“… … ……He came to our Dera and knocked the door of our Dera a nd started abusing us. My father Sarw a n Singh and brother Hardial Si n gh open e d the door (gate). Manjit Singh s tarted going towards Malsian on t he passage which goes to that village. My father and my brother Hardial Si n gh went behind him and I also followed. When my father and brother w e nt near M anjit Singh, he gave a gandassi b low to my brother Hardial Singh a nd when my father intervened Manjit Singh again gave a gandassi blow on t he foreh e ad of my father. Hardial Singh r eceived injury as a result of blow in the h e ad and he fell down after receipt o f injury………”

¶85

A perusal of the aforesaid statements o f PW-8 Sarwan Singh and P W -9 Amrik Sin g h shows that they have stated c onsistently regarding the man n er of occurre n ce. It is borne out that the acc u sed after knocking at the door of the complainant’s house went away towa r ds road and when Sarwan Si n gh

¶86

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶87

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶88

( 11 )

¶89

(complaina n t) and his son Hardial Singh (deceased) opened the door a nd went towar d s the accused, who was a little away, the accused inflicted a bl o w with axe o n the head of Hardial Singh. B oth the said witnesses i.e. P W -8 Sarwan Si n gh and PW-9 Amrik Singh w ere cross-examined at length on behalf of t h e accused, but nothing substa n tial could be elicited during t he course of t h eir cross-examination.

¶90

At this sta g e, it is also apposite to refer t o the medical evidence led by t he prosecutio n with regard to the injuries fou n d on the person of Sarwan Si n gh (complaina n t). The prosecution has exam i ned PW-4 Dr. Vijay Kumar, who stated that on 25.06.2002 at about 12. 1 5 AM, he had medico lega l ly examined S arwan Singh and found the foll o wing injuries on his person:

¶91

“1. A la c erated wound 3 x 1/2 cm on rig h t side of forehead 1 cm above t he later a l end of right eye brow. Wou n d was bone deep. Blood clot w as prese n t in the wound.

¶92

1. A lacerated wound 1 x 1/4 cm on the r i ght thumb on medial aspect of di s tal phal n x. Wound was vertical in directio n . Blood clot was present in woun d .

¶93

1. An a b rasion 1 x 1/2 cm on right knee joint. Anterialy blood clot was pres e nt in th e wound.”

¶94

Sarwan Si n gh (complainant) was medico l e gally examined on 25.06.2002 at about 12.1 5 AM, which would mean that b arely about 1 hour & 15 minu t es after the oc c urrence. Under these circumst a nces, this Court does not find a ny reason to doubt the factum of existence o f injuries on the person of Sar w an Singh and w hich would make him a stamp e d witness whose testimony can n ot be doubted unless there is something very c onvincing to contradict the sa m e. The aforesaid witness i.e. PW-4 Dr. V i jay Kumar was formally cro s s- examined b riefly, but there is nothing s u bstantial to doubt his testimo n y. Having re g ard to the consistent testi m onies of PW-8 Sarwan Singh

¶95

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶96

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶97

( 12 )

¶98

(complaina n t) as well as other eye-witnes s i.e. PW-9 Amrik Singh coup l ed with the m e dical evidence, there is no man n er of doubt as regards the fact t h at it is the ac c used, who had inflicted an inj u ry on the head of Hardial Si n gh (deceased) l eading to his death and had als o injured the complainant.

¶99

However, t he material question which st i ll survives is as to whether t he homicidal d eath caused by the accused/a p pellant would attract an offe n ce under Sect i on 302 IPC or as to whether i t would attract a lesser offence in terms of S e ction 304 IPC. In this conte x t, reference needs to be made to Exceptions to “murder” carved out under S ection 300 IPC. Section 300 I P C is reproduc e d herein under:

¶100

“300. Murder. - Except in the cases her e inafter excepted, culpable homicid e is murder, if the act by which the death is cau s ed is done with the intention of caus i ng death, o r – Second ly . - It is done with intention of cau s ing such bodily injury as the offen d er knows t o be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or – Thirdly. - If it is done with the intention of c ausing bodily injury to any person a nd the bod i ly injury intended to be inflicted is s u fficient in the ordinary course of nat u re to caus e death, or –

¶101

Fourthl y . - If the person committing the act k nows that it is so imminently danger o us that it m ust, in all probability, cause death o r such bodily injury as is likely to ca u se death, a nd commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of caus i ng death o r such injury as aforesaid.

¶102

Exception 1. - When culpable homicide is not mur d er. - Culpable homicide is not murde r if t h e offender, whilst deprived of the p o wer of self-control by grave and sud d en provocation, causes the death of th e person who gave the provocation or c a uses the death of any other person b y mistake or accident. T he above exception is subject to the fo llowing provisos:-

¶103

First. - That the provocation is no t sought or voluntarily provoked by t he offender as an excuse for killing or d oing harm to any person.

¶104

Secondly. - That the provocation is n ot given by anything done in obedie n ce to the law, or by a public servant i n the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

¶105

Thirdly. - That the provocation is n ot given by anything done in the la w ful exercise of the right of private defe n ce.

¶106

Explanation. - Whether the provo c ation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amountin g to murder is a question of fact.

¶107

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶108

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶109

( 13 )

¶110

Exception 2. - Culpable homicide is not murder i f the offender, in the exercise in g o od f aith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the po w er g iven to him by law and causes the d eath of the person against whom h e is e xercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without a ny i ntention of doing more harm that in necessary for the purpose of s u ch d efence.

¶111

Exception 3. - Culpable homicide is not murder i f the offender, being a public servan t or a iding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exce e ds t he powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which h e, i n good faith, believes to be lawful a n d necessary for the due discharge of his d uty as such public servant and wit h out ill-will towards the person wh o se d eath is caused.

¶112

Exception 4. - Culpable homicide is not murder if i t is committed without premeditatio n in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without t he o ffenders having taken undue adv a ntage or acted in a cruel or unus u al m anner. E xplanation. - It is immaterial i n such cases which party offers t he p rovocation or commits the first assa u lt.

¶113

Exception 5. - Culpable homicide is not murder w hen the person whose death is caused, b eing above the age of eighteen year s , suffers death or takes the risk of death w ith his own consent.”

¶114

The eviden c e clearly shows that the accuse d had come to the house of Sar w an

¶115

Singh (co m plainant) and hurled abuses wh i le knocking the door of the hou s e, but when t h e complainant (PW-8 Sarwan Singh) and his son Hardial Singh (deceased) opened the gate, the accused h ad already moved from the g a te towards th e road. As depicted in the site p lan Ex.PU, the accused inflicte d a blow with a n axe on the head of Hardial Si n gh (deceased) at Point ‘A’, wh i ch is on the ro a d at a short distance away fro m the gate of house of complainant. The afores a id conduct of the accused in ha v ing moved away from the gate of complaina n t’s house after hurling abuses and having moved upto the r o ad where occ u rrence had taken place, shows that at that stage he did not h a ve any intenti o n to kill the deceased. It was s u bsequently when the complain a nt and his son Hardial Singh went upto him t h at the accused gave a single bl o w with an axe to the deceased on his hea d . It appears that the injury w as inflicted w h en Sarwan Singh (complaina n t) and Hardial Singh (deceas e d) VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶116

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶117

( 14 )

¶118

confronted the accused for having hurled a b uses after knocking at the gate of their house . As stated above, the act of t h e accused in having moved a w ay from the h o use of complainant shows tha t till that point of time he had no intention t o kill the deceased. Upon be i ng confronted or challenged, he inflicted o n e blow with axe on head of d e ceased, which proved fatal. T he aforesaid f a cts suggest that it is a case wh i ch would fall within the ambit of Exception 4 of Section 300 attracting an of f ence under Section 304 Part-I I P C and not an o ffence under Section 302 IPC. As such, the accused/appellan t is guilty of h a ving committed offence punish a ble under Section 304 Part-I IP C .

¶119

As far as c onviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC f o r having inflicted simple hurt t o Sarwan Singh (complainant) is concerned, PW-8 Sarwan Singh while in the witness box has categorica l ly stated abou t the accused having inflicted i nj ury to him with a gandassi on h is forehead a b ove his right eye. His son i.e. P W-9 Amrik Singh, who is an e y e- witness, h a s also stated identically. The m edical evidence in the shape of statement o f PW-4 Dr. Vijay Kumar, M edical Officer, who had med i co legally ex a mined Sarwan Singh (compl a inant) on 25.06.2002 also fu l ly establishes the factum of existence of inju r y on the person of Sarwan Sin g h. There is n o thing on record to doubt eith e r the ocular version set-forth by Sarwan Si n gh (complainant) and his s o n Amrik Singh or the medi c al evidence. Consequently, we do not find any ground to interfere with t he findings of guilt of the accused as regards o ffence under Section 323 IPC a nd the same ar e hereby affirmed.

¶120

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶121

CRA-D-566-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶122

( 15 )

¶123

As a seque l to the discussion made above, the conviction of the appellant as recorded b y the trial Court is altered fro m Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. The sentence of imprisonment f or life is also reduced to RI for 10 years. Th e fine, however, shall remain u n altered. The sentence as impo s ed for offence under Section 323 IPC shall als o remained unaltered and shall r un concurrentl y alongwith sentence for offenc e under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

¶124

The period already undergone shall, howe v er, be set off against the sente n ce imposed. T he accused be arrested to under g o the remaining sentence.

¶125