Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 338
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5460 of
2024 @ D.No.36602 of 2022]
MOHD. AHSAN ...APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT (S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
th
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 09
October, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 233-
DB of 2007 wherein the Division Bench dismissed the Criminal
Appeal preferred by the Appellant Mohd. Ahsan and upheld the
th
order of conviction and sentence dated 25 January, 2007 as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.04.25
16:22:49 IST
Reason:
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar
1
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.
09 of 2005.
3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are
as under:-
th
3.1 On 18 August, 2005, at about 01:00 a.m., the SHO of
Police Station City Jagadhri, namely, Jai Singh (PW-13), received
telephonic information from P.P. Rakshak Vihar about the death
of one Vikrant @ Chintu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’)
who had been admitted in Civil Hospital, Jagadhri in an injured
state. On the receipt of the information, PW-13 along with several
other police personnel rushed to the said hospital wherefrom PW-
13 obtained the medico-legal report (Ex.PC) of the deceased and
recorded the statement of Sh. Devi Dayal Sharma (PW-10), the
de-facto complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, the
First Information Report (“FIR” for short) being FIR No. 373 of
2005 was registered at Police Station, City Jagadhri for the
offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (“IPC” for short), against the present Appellant.
Subsequently, the post mortem of the deceased was conducted
2
th
on 18 August, 2005 wherein it was concluded that the cause of
death was shock due to massive haemorrhage in the left plural
cavity which was sufficient to cause death under normal
circumstances.
th
3.2 The prosecution case is that on 17 August, 2005 at about
11-11:30 p.m., the de-facto complainant (PW-10) had been
taking food at Shiv Dhaba which was situated opposite Bus Stop,
Jagadhri, in the company of Charan Singh and Rajiv Kumar (PW-
12), when another group of four men, namely, Neeraj Gulati (PW-
11), Kamal Kumar, Naresh Kumar and the deceased arrived at
the Dhaba to partake their meals. To attract the attention of the
waiter, the deceased called the waiter by use of the word “hello”.
This gesture irked another customer i.e. the present Appellant
who was seated in a corner of the Dhaba, smoking a cigarette.
The Appellant initially abused the deceased in the name of his
sister and thereafter rose from his seat, walked up to the
deceased and grappled with him. During the said quarrel, the
Appellant and the deceased went out of the Dhaba where they
were separated by the complainant (PW-10) and his companions.
3
However, refusing to relent, the Appellant rushed to his car and
pulled out a glass bottle which he broke on the bonnet of his car
and thereafter proceeded to inflict five injuries on the body of the
deceased, due to which the deceased fell to the ground bleeding,
after which the Appellant fled from the scene. Subsequently,
Neeraj Gulati (PW-11) and the others present at the Dhaba placed
the deceased on the motorbike of PW-11 and rushed him to
Aggarwal Hospital, but owing to the unavailability of a doctor, the
deceased was subsequently taken to the Civil Hospital, Jagadhri,
where he eventually succumbed to his injuries.
3.3 Upon the conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet came to
be filed before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar. Since the case was exclusively triable
by the Sessions Court, the same came to be committed to the
Sessions Judge.
3.4 Charges came to be framed by the trial Court for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The Appellant pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4
3.5 The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to bring home the
guilt of the accused. In his defence, the Appellant stated that it
was a case of false implication since he had not used the glass
bottle to cause any injury to the deceased; whereas, it was the
deceased who had rushed towards the Appellant with a broken
glass bottle in order to physically assault him, during which
exercise, he had fallen down and had injured his own body with
the said glass bottle.
3.6 At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found that the
prosecution had proved the case against the Appellant beyond
reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted him for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
3.7 Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellant preferred a Criminal
Appeal before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned
judgment dismissed the Criminal Appeal and affirmed the order
of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.
5
3.8 Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
th
4. This Court vide order dated 14 December 2022 had issued
notice, limited to the question as to whether conviction under
Section 302 of the IPC could be converted to Part I or Part II of
Section 304 of the IPC.
5. We have heard Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, learned Advocate-on-
Record appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma,
learned Deputy Advocate General (“D.A.G.” for short), appearing
for the respondent-State.
6. Mr. Jay Kishor Singh submits that even if the prosecution
case is taken at its face value, it would reveal that the incident
occurred out of a sudden fight. It is submitted that there was no
intention of the appellant to cause death of the deceased. It is
submitted that the incident had occurred in a sudden fight
without premeditation, in the heat of passion upon a sudden
quarrel. It is submitted that from the nature of injuries, it would
reveal that the appellant had not taken undue advantage or acted
in a cruel or unusual manner. He therefore submits that the
conviction under Section 302 of the IPC would not be tenable and
6
the offence would be required to be brought under Part I or Part
II of Section 304 of the IPC.
7. Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, learned D.A.G., on the contrary,
submits that both the courts, upon correct appreciation of
evidence, have concurrently found the Appellant guilty for the
commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
IPC and the said findings warrant no interference.
8. The prosecution case basically rests on the ocular testimony
of PW10-Devi Dayal son of Sadhu Ram; PW11-Neeraj Gulati son
of Vinod Kumar; and PW12-Rajiv Kumar son of Sham Lal.
9. PW10-Devi Dayal in his evidence stated that he along with
Charan Singh and Rajiv Kumar (PW-12) were sitting at Shiv
Dhaba for taking dinner. In the meantime, Kuldip and Vikrant
@ Chintu (the deceased) and two other boys reached there.
Kuldip then placed orders for the meal. It is stated that, in the
meantime, a car bearing registration No.DL-7729 arrived there
and its driver alighted from his seat. He then objected to the use
of the words made by the deceased Vikrant @ Chintu by abusing
him in the name of his sister. However, PW10 and his associates
7
| intervened and separated them. They returned inside the | ||
|---|---|---|
| building of the restaurant but the accused-Appellant and the | ||
| deceased were again heard quarreling. When they rushed out to | ||
| intervene, the accused-Appellant pulled out a glass bottle from | ||
| his car, broke it on the bonnet of his car and caused at least five | ||
| injuries on the person of the deceased with that broken glass | ||
| bottle. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital, | ||
| Jagadhri. | ||
| 10. Similar is the evidence of PW11-Neeraj Gulati. It will be | ||
| relevant to refer to the following part of his testimony in the | ||
| examination-in-chief. | ||
| “I placed the orders for the meals | ||
| whereafter deceased Vikrant called the | ||
| waiter by the sound of Hello. It seems that | ||
| the accused thought that sound was | ||
| aimed at him and he retaliated by abusing | ||
| Vikrant in the name of his sister. This was | ||
| followed by a heated exchange. They then | ||
| grappled out of the building of the Dhaba. | ||
| We intervened to separate them and | ||
| succeeded. The accused rushed to his car, | ||
| pulled out a bottle from the driver’s seat | ||
| side, broke it on the bumper of the car and | ||
| violently attacked repeatedly victim | ||
| Vikrant.” | ||
8
| 11. Similar is the evidence of PW12-Rajiv Kumar. | ||
|---|---|---|
| 12. PW1-Dr. Vikash Kaushik had examined the deceased | ||
| Vikrant, who was brought in an unconscious condition. He | ||
| found the following injuries on the injured Vikrant:- | ||
| “1. Lacerated wound 5cm x 4 cm x bone | ||
| deep on left side of chest 7 cm from | ||
| mid-line. | ||
| 2. Lacerated wound 5cm x 3 cm bone | ||
| deep on dorsomedial aspect of left | ||
| arm and elbow joint. | ||
| 3. Lacerated wound 4cm x 2cm x bone | ||
| deep on anterior aspect of right | ||
| shoulder joint and adjoining area of | ||
| chest. | ||
| 4. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x bone | ||
| deep on the medial wall of right | ||
| axilla. | ||
| 5. Punctured wound 1cm x .5cm x bone | ||
| deep on left side of chest.” | ||
| 13. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses | ||
| themselves, it would reveal that there is no premeditation. The | ||
| incident occurred since the appellant believed that the utterances | ||
| by deceased Vikrant @ Chintu were aimed at him and, therefore, |
9
he retaliated by abusing the deceased. This was followed by a
heated exchange between them. They grappled out of the
building of the Dhaba. Though the witnesses were successful in
separating them, the accused-Appellant rushed to his car, pulled
out a bottle from the driver’s seat side, broke it on the bumper of
the car and attacked the deceased.
14. It is thus clear that the incident occurred without
premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion and upon
a sudden quarrel. The evidence would also not show that the
accused-Appellant had either taken undue advantage or acted in
a cruel or unusual manner. We therefore find that the present
case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
15. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be
partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-Appellant under
Section 302 of the IPC is altered to one under Part I of Section
304 of the IPC and he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
a period of eight (08) years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
thousand) and in default of payment of fine, a further
imprisonment for a period of three (03) months.
10
16. Needless to state that the period already spent by the
accused-Appellant in custody shall be set-off against the
aforesaid sentence.
17. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.
…….........................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
…….........................J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
…….........................J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 25, 2024
11