caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Kala Singh @ Gurnam Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 21 September, 2021Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy, Hrishikesh Roy
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.11140-11141 of 2019
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 10401041 OF 2021
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.1114011141 of 2019]
Kala Singh @ Gurnam Singh …..Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab …..Respondent
JUDGMENT
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and orders
dated 08.02.2019 and 01.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.713 of 2003. High
Court has modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section
304 PartI r/w Section 34, IPC, and sentenced to 12 years’ rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/. The conviction under
Signature Not Verified
Section 201 IPC was maintained.
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
3. It is alleged that, the appellant and the deceased had a
Date: 2021.09.21
16:09:15 IST
Reason:
sudden fight as the deceased had stolen the pigeon of the appellant
1
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.11140-11141 of 2019
and in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, the coaccused
(Kehar Singh) who had rod with him, gave a blow with the rod on the
right side of the head of the deceased resulting in his death. It is
further alleged that, thereafter the appellant and coaccused have
thrown the dead body of the deceased in the minor canal.
4. Before the trial court, the coaccused was charged for offence
under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, whereas the appellant was charged
for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. They were convicted
by the Sessions Court for the aforesaid offences and they were
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under
Sections 302/34 IPC and three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the
offence under Section 201 IPC, apart from the fine.
5. In the appeal filed before the High Court, High Court has
found that as the deceased had stolen the pigeon of appellantaccused
Kala Singh, scuffle took place between Shamber Singh (deceased) and
the appellant Kala Singh. It is further held that the coaccused Kehar
Singh gave blow with the rod on the head of the deceased Shamber
Singh. As a result of such blow Shamber Singh fell down and died.
The High Court has categorically found that scuffle had taken place
on the spur of the moment and that sudden fight had taken place in
the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel and it was not a pre
2
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.11140-11141 of 2019
meditated act. It has also come on record that appellant, the co
accused and the deceased had consumed liquor and even in the
chemical examiner report it was found that deceased had also
consumed liquor. The High Court has modified the conviction from
Section 302 IPC to 304 PartI IPC and imposed the sentence, of 12
years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/, on the
appellant herein and coaccused for the offence under Section 304
PartI with a default clause that in the event of nonpayment of fine,
they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six
months.
6. We have heard Sri Bharat Sood, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for the State of
Punjab.
7. The only submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant Sri Bharat Sood is that there was no intention at all on the
part of the appellantaccused to kill the deceased. It is submitted that
the appellant, coaccused and deceased had consumed liquor and on
the ground that the deceased had stolen pigeon of appellant Kala
Singh, scuffle took place between deceased Shamber Singh and
appellant Kala Singh. It is submitted that at that point of time, the
coaccused Kehar Singh gave one rod blow on the head of the
3
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.11140-11141 of 2019
deceased Shamber Singh which resulted into his death. It is
submitted that scuffle had taken place on the spur of the moment and
that sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel. It was not a premeditated act and there was no
intention at all to kill the deceased. It is submitted that having regard
to the reasoning assigned by the High Court itself High Court ought to
have modified the conviction to Section 304 PartII but not 304 PartI,
as ordered. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has placed
reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Uday Singh v.
State of U.P.1 wherein this Court has modified the conviction to one
under Section 304 PartII IPC. Learned counsel by further submitting
that appellant has already served more than three years of sentence,
made a request to reduce the sentence by converting the conviction to
one under Section 304 PartII IPC.
8. On the other hand, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned counsel for
the State of Punjab has contended that there are absolutely no
grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the High Court. It is submitted that sufficient
leniency is already shown to the appellantaccused and there are no
grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. It is further
1 (2002) 7 SCC 79
4
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.11140-11141 of 2019
contended that the case law which is relied on by the appellant is
distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the facts of the case
on hand.
9. Having heard learned counsels on both sides, we have
perused the impugned judgment and other material placed on record.
It is clear from the impugned judgment and other material placed on
record that the incident happened one day prior to the date of
panchayat elections. On the fateful day, the appellant, coaccused
and deceased went to the house of one Hardev Singh Arora and they
took one bottle of liquor with them. Thereafter they went to bridge of
Doda Minor through Harike passage. There they consumed liquor
where there was a quarrel between the appellant and deceased
Shamber Singh alleging that deceased Shamber Singh had stolen the
pigeon of appellant herein. The coaccused Kehar Singh who had a
rod with him, gave a rod blow on the head of Shamber Singh.
Immediately thereafter he fell down and as there was no response
even after half an hour, they have shifted the body to the minor canal.
It is clear from the evidence and other material placed on record that
there was no intention to kill the deceased Shamber Singh. It is clear
from the evidence on record that the scuffle had taken place on the
spur of the moment and a sudden fight had taken place in the heat of
5
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.11140-11141 of 2019
passion upon a sudden quarrel. It was not a premeditated one and
as there was no intention on the part of the appellant and coaccused
either to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for
the offence under Section 304 PartI IPC. In absence of any intention
on the part of the appellant, we are of the view that it is a clear case
where the conviction of the appellant is to be modified to one under
Section 304 PartII IPC by maintaining the conviction for the offence
under Section 201 IPC. The case law which is relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellant also supports the case of the appellant for
converting his conviction from the one under Section 304 PartI IPC to
the one under Section 304 PartII IPC.
10. The judgment relied on by the counsel for the appellant, in
the case of Uday Singh v. State of U.P.1 supports the case of the
appellant. The relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 read as under :
“6. From the findings recorded by the trial court as well
as the High Court, it is clear that the fight between the two
parties started all of a sudden as a result of obstruction
caused in digging of the foundation and there is no
evidence to show that the accused attacked the deceased
with deadly or dangerous arms (or weapons). It was only in
a fight, hand to fist, that both Gainda Singh and the
appellant had held the neck of the deceased, Shishupal
Singh with such force as to ultimately result in
6
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.11140-11141 of 2019
strangulation and his death. It is very difficult to conceive
as to how much pressure was applied either by Gainda
Singh or the appellant on the deceased’s neck so as to
cause death. It would be reasonable to hold that the
injuries were caused by the appellant on the deceased in a
sudden fight where no arms (or weapons) were used and
that fight took place in the heat of passion and no common
intention to kill the deceased could be inferred. We cannot
definitely conclude who actually inflicted the fatal injury as
the evidence on record discloses that Gainda Singh and
the appellant both strangled the deceased, which action is
part of the sudden unarmed fight nor can we conclude that
the appellant had an intention to cause death or cause
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, though we
attribute to him knowledge that such act is likely to cause
death. Thus the appellant and Gainda Singh are guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
7. In the circumstances, we set aside the conviction
recorded by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court
under Section 302 read with Section 34 and instead
convict him under Section 304 Part II and reduce the
sentence to imprisonment for a period of seven years. The
bail granted earlier shall stand cancelled and the appellant
shall surrender before the trial court and be committed to
prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.”
So also, the judgment in the case of Shahajan Ali & Ors. etc. v. State
of Maharashtra & Ors. etc.2 supports the case of the appellant.
Paragraph 8 of the judgment, which is relevant, reads as under :
“8. We have no doubt about the complicity of all the
accused in the homicide of Sarfraj. A1 attacked the
2 (2017) 11 SC 807
7
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.11140-11141 of 2019
deceased with the knife and caused injury on his neck
which resulted in his death. The other accused assisted
him in committing the crime by holding the hands of the
deceased. However, the only question that falls for our
consideration is whether the accused are liable to be
punished for an offence under Section 302 IPC. After
considering the submissions made by the counsel for the
appellants and scrutinising the material on record, we are
of the opinion that the accused are not liable to be
convicted under Section 302 IPC. We are convinced that
there was neither prior concert nor common intention to
commit a murder. During the course of their business
activity the accused reached the dhaba where the deceased
was present. An altercation took place during the
discussion they were having behind the dhaba. That led to
a sudden fight during which A1 attacked the deceased
with a knife. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is applicable
to the facts of this case. As we are convinced that the
accused are responsible for the death of Sarfraj, we are of
the opinion that they are liable for conviction under
Section 304 Part II IPC. We are informed that A1 has
undergone a sentence of seven years and that A2 to A4
have undergone four years of imprisonment. We modify the
judgment of the High Court converting the conviction of
the accused from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC
sentencing them to the period already undergone. They
shall be released forthwith.”
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed in
part and conviction of the appellant is modified from the one under
Section 304 PartI/34 IPC to the one under Section 304 PartII/34
IPC. The appellant is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and the fine of Rs.10,000/
imposed by the High Court is maintained. Further, conviction of the
8
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.11140-11141 of 2019
appellant for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentence of three
years’ rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs.500/ are also
maintained.
………………………………J.
[R. Subhash Reddy]
………………………………J.
[Hrishikesh Roy]
New Delhi.
September 21, 2021.
9
Comments