Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 396
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5690 of 2020)
RAVINDER KUMAR @RAJU …Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. Road rage results in disastrous
consequences to both the perpetrator and the
target; as the present case demonstrates, which
resulted in the murder of one of the assailants
and the arraignment of three who were targeted,
as accused for the murder. The appellant is the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.03.25
18:28:11 IST
Reason:
sole accused, out of the three, convicted for the
Page 1 of 9
offence under Section 302 of the India Penal
1
Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ₹ 2000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand only) with default clause
of rigorous imprisonment for two months, if fine
is not paid. The other two accused were
acquitted.
3. Of the two acquitted; one was
acquitted by the Trial Court and one by the
Appellate Court. The State had challenged the
acquittal by the Trial Court by way of an appeal
which also stood rejected by the impugned
judgment. As of now, we are only concerned
with the appellant-herein who was convicted
and sentenced for the offence of murder under
Section 302 of the I.P.C. At the admission stage,
this Court had issued a notice limited to the
1
“I.P.C.”
Page 2 of 9
nature of the offence; whether it falls under
Section 302 or Section 304 of the I.P.C. We are,
hence, confining ourselves to this aspect and
the sentencing, if a lesser offence is made out.
4. On facts, it is to be noticed that the
deceased was riding a motorcycle in which his
father was travelling pillion. Alongside the
brother of the deceased was also riding a bike;
the three proceeding to a common destination.
At a crossing, they saw a three wheeler colliding
with a scooter and the rider of the scooter falling
down. The offending vehicle sped away while the
father and sons approached the fallen
scooterist, who told them that he had escaped
without any injuries. At that moment, another
scooterist also joined them, who was the
colleague of the person involved in the accident;
both being Lecturers in a nearby college. The
Page 3 of 9
scooterist wanted to pursue the offending
vehicle and requested the father and sons to
join them. Together, the five went after the
vehicle and detected it at the crime scene. The
scooterist and the father accosted the identified
accused and questioned them on their conduct.
It was the prosecution’s case that while an
altercation was going on, the appellant-herein
picked up an iron rod from his vehicle and hit
the deceased on the head. After this the three
accused, who were in the three-wheeler, sped
away and the injured was taken to the hospital.
5. A DDR was registered immediately on
the information supplied by the father but no
2
First Information Report was registered. An
F.I.R. was registered only after five days when
the victim succumbed to the injury. The post-
2
“F.I.R.”
Page 4 of 9
mortem report clearly indicates a homicidal
death occasioned by the single injury inflicted
on the head. The iron rod was recovered on the
confessional statement of the appellant under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We
are not looking at the nitty-gritty of the
evidence, since the limited adjudication possible
is as to the nature of the crime; whether it can
be classified as a culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Section 304 of the
I.P.C.
6. There is no motive alleged on the
accused nor can there be found any pre-
meditation of the accused. True, the accused
were travelling in a vehicle which hit the
scooterist and sped away. It was the scooterist
accompanied by four others, one of whom was
the deceased, who chased the offending vehicle.
Page 5 of 9
The offending vehicle and its occupants having
been identified, it was the five who confronted
them and accused them of having dashed down
the scooter and not having even the courtesy to
help the fallen scooterist. Pausing here, we have
to clearly notice that the father of the deceased
and the scooterist who had been hit, both spoke
of the number of the offending vehicle having
been taken by them. Despite this, they did not
think it fit to approach the police and took law
into their own hands, while pursuing the
offending vehicle which was involved in a hit
and run and confronting its occupants.
7. Definitely, it was in the course of such
altercation that the blow was inflicted on the
head of the accused resulting in an injury which
caused his death. As we observed, there is no
pre-meditation and it was the deceased and the
Page 6 of 9
persons along with him who chased and
confronted the accused. It was a group of five
persons who confronted the three occupants of
the vehicle involved in the hit and run. The
altercation was spoken of, but the witnesses of
the prosecution only spoke of heated
arguments. It was in the course of such
st
altercation that the 1 accused who is the
appellant-herein picked up an iron rod and hit
the deceased. There cannot be any intention to
cause death alleged but there is definitely an
intention to cause bodily injury which resulted
in the death. We say this, since the assailants,
including the deceased, were not armed and in
the midst of a wordy altercation, the accused
took out an iron rod and hit one of the
assailants on the head; a vital part of the body.
Hence, culpability under Section 299 of the
Page 7 of 9
I.P.C. though attracted, it does not result in a
finding under Section 300 since it falls under
Exception 1. The one blow inflicted on the head
of the deceased resulted in his death, that too
after five days, which overt act was without any
pre-meditation and was occasioned in an
altercation where the group comprising the
deceased were the aggressors and the offender-
appellant herein could be said to have acted
under sudden provocation, thus being deprived
of the power of self-control. Necessarily, the
offence has to be found to be one under Section
304 of the I.P.C. being culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. However, under Part I of
Section 304 of the I.P.C., since the bodily injury
deliberately inflicted was likely to cause death
and in such circumstance, the conviction has to
be modified to be under Section 304 Part I. In
Page 8 of 9
the totality of the circumstances based on the
evidence led, we are of the opinion that the
sentence has to be of 7 years rigorous
imprisonment. The fine imposed and the default
sentence shall remain untouched. The
appellant, if on bail, shall surrender within a
period of two months before the jurisdictional
Court, if he has not already completed seven
years in jail.
8. The Criminal Appeal is allowed to the
above extent.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 25, 2025.
Page 9 of 9
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5690 of 2020)
RAVINDER KUMAR @RAJU …Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. Road rage results in disastrous
consequences to both the perpetrator and the
target; as the present case demonstrates, which
resulted in the murder of one of the assailants
and the arraignment of three who were targeted,
as accused for the murder. The appellant is the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Nirmala Negi
Date: 2025.03.25
18:28:11 IST
Reason:
sole accused, out of the three, convicted for the
Page 1 of 9
offence under Section 302 of the India Penal
1
Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ₹ 2000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand only) with default clause
of rigorous imprisonment for two months, if fine
is not paid. The other two accused were
acquitted.
3. Of the two acquitted; one was
acquitted by the Trial Court and one by the
Appellate Court. The State had challenged the
acquittal by the Trial Court by way of an appeal
which also stood rejected by the impugned
judgment. As of now, we are only concerned
with the appellant-herein who was convicted
and sentenced for the offence of murder under
Section 302 of the I.P.C. At the admission stage,
this Court had issued a notice limited to the
1
“I.P.C.”
Page 2 of 9
nature of the offence; whether it falls under
Section 302 or Section 304 of the I.P.C. We are,
hence, confining ourselves to this aspect and
the sentencing, if a lesser offence is made out.
4. On facts, it is to be noticed that the
deceased was riding a motorcycle in which his
father was travelling pillion. Alongside the
brother of the deceased was also riding a bike;
the three proceeding to a common destination.
At a crossing, they saw a three wheeler colliding
with a scooter and the rider of the scooter falling
down. The offending vehicle sped away while the
father and sons approached the fallen
scooterist, who told them that he had escaped
without any injuries. At that moment, another
scooterist also joined them, who was the
colleague of the person involved in the accident;
both being Lecturers in a nearby college. The
Page 3 of 9
scooterist wanted to pursue the offending
vehicle and requested the father and sons to
join them. Together, the five went after the
vehicle and detected it at the crime scene. The
scooterist and the father accosted the identified
accused and questioned them on their conduct.
It was the prosecution’s case that while an
altercation was going on, the appellant-herein
picked up an iron rod from his vehicle and hit
the deceased on the head. After this the three
accused, who were in the three-wheeler, sped
away and the injured was taken to the hospital.
5. A DDR was registered immediately on
the information supplied by the father but no
2
First Information Report was registered. An
F.I.R. was registered only after five days when
the victim succumbed to the injury. The post-
2
“F.I.R.”
Page 4 of 9
mortem report clearly indicates a homicidal
death occasioned by the single injury inflicted
on the head. The iron rod was recovered on the
confessional statement of the appellant under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We
are not looking at the nitty-gritty of the
evidence, since the limited adjudication possible
is as to the nature of the crime; whether it can
be classified as a culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Section 304 of the
I.P.C.
6. There is no motive alleged on the
accused nor can there be found any pre-
meditation of the accused. True, the accused
were travelling in a vehicle which hit the
scooterist and sped away. It was the scooterist
accompanied by four others, one of whom was
the deceased, who chased the offending vehicle.
Page 5 of 9
The offending vehicle and its occupants having
been identified, it was the five who confronted
them and accused them of having dashed down
the scooter and not having even the courtesy to
help the fallen scooterist. Pausing here, we have
to clearly notice that the father of the deceased
and the scooterist who had been hit, both spoke
of the number of the offending vehicle having
been taken by them. Despite this, they did not
think it fit to approach the police and took law
into their own hands, while pursuing the
offending vehicle which was involved in a hit
and run and confronting its occupants.
7. Definitely, it was in the course of such
altercation that the blow was inflicted on the
head of the accused resulting in an injury which
caused his death. As we observed, there is no
pre-meditation and it was the deceased and the
Page 6 of 9
persons along with him who chased and
confronted the accused. It was a group of five
persons who confronted the three occupants of
the vehicle involved in the hit and run. The
altercation was spoken of, but the witnesses of
the prosecution only spoke of heated
arguments. It was in the course of such
st
altercation that the 1 accused who is the
appellant-herein picked up an iron rod and hit
the deceased. There cannot be any intention to
cause death alleged but there is definitely an
intention to cause bodily injury which resulted
in the death. We say this, since the assailants,
including the deceased, were not armed and in
the midst of a wordy altercation, the accused
took out an iron rod and hit one of the
assailants on the head; a vital part of the body.
Hence, culpability under Section 299 of the
Page 7 of 9
I.P.C. though attracted, it does not result in a
finding under Section 300 since it falls under
Exception 1. The one blow inflicted on the head
of the deceased resulted in his death, that too
after five days, which overt act was without any
pre-meditation and was occasioned in an
altercation where the group comprising the
deceased were the aggressors and the offender-
appellant herein could be said to have acted
under sudden provocation, thus being deprived
of the power of self-control. Necessarily, the
offence has to be found to be one under Section
304 of the I.P.C. being culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. However, under Part I of
Section 304 of the I.P.C., since the bodily injury
deliberately inflicted was likely to cause death
and in such circumstance, the conviction has to
be modified to be under Section 304 Part I. In
Page 8 of 9
the totality of the circumstances based on the
evidence led, we are of the opinion that the
sentence has to be of 7 years rigorous
imprisonment. The fine imposed and the default
sentence shall remain untouched. The
appellant, if on bail, shall surrender within a
period of two months before the jurisdictional
Court, if he has not already completed seven
years in jail.
8. The Criminal Appeal is allowed to the
above extent.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
……………………..……………, J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
……………………..……………, J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 25, 2025.
Page 9 of 9