CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT Manjit Singh @ Sahib State of Punjab CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. Manjit Singh @ Sahib Sessions Judge, guilty of having sentenced him Offence 302 IPC 323 IPC 2. The matter Station Shahkot, Sarwan Singh leading to FIR (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH CRA Date of Decision: Singh @ Sahib Versus Punjab HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. P.S.Sekhon, Advocate as Amicus Curiae, for the appellant. Mr. Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punjab. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. Manjit Singh @ Sahib assails judgment dated Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which the trial Court while holding him guilty of having committed offences under Section him as under: Offence Imprisonment Fine 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs. undergo RI for IPC RI for 6 months Rs.500/ undergo RI for one month matter arises out of FIR No.137 dated Shahkot, under Sections 302/323 IPC (Ex.P Sarwan Singh. The translated gist of Sarwan FIR reads as under: FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) ate of Decision: 22.05.2025 … Appellant ... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI P.S.Sekhon, Advocate as Amicus Curiae, for the appellant. Attri, AAG, Punjab. judgment dated 01.05.2004 passed by learned the trial Court while holding him under Sections 302 & 323 IPC Fine Rs.1000/-. In default of fine, to undergo RI for three months Rs.500/-. In default of fine, to undergo RI for one month 137 dated 25.06.2002 registered at Police IPC (Ex.PL/2), at the instance of Sarwan Singh’s statement (Ex.P P.S.Sekhon, Advocate as Amicus Curiae, for the appellant. learned the trial Court while holding him IPC, registered at Police , at the instance of (Ex.PL) VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) “I am a resident of Lakhsian Patti, Village Malsian have two sons and two daughters, who are all married. My eldest son Hardial Singh when I, my son Hardial Singh as sleeping my younger son Amrik Singh and resides with our ‘Dera’ Hardial Singh opened he gate. Manjit Singh went when we came near him, which he was holding in his hand, on the head of my son Har fell down. When I stepped ahead to save my son, then Manjit Singh blow with axe hitting me near my right eye my other son Amrik Singh and other members of family came to the spot upon which Manjit they are produced before me, No.JKE vehicle got stuck in the fields of paddy. and his companions ran away from the spot on foot. The reason for quarrel is that (Sandu However, their mother Manjit Singh used to press upon her to transfer the said house and land in his name. On account of said given beatings and have killed my me. I 3. The aforesaid statement of Shahkot by ASI receipt of intimation from the hospital authorities regarding admission of Hardial Singh (deceased) to the police station for lodging of FIR. The dead body was subjected to post Singh thereafter went to the spot and prepared a rough site plan of the place (O&M) ( 2 ) I am a resident of Lakhsian Patti, Village Malsian have two sons and two daughters, who are all married. My eldest son dial Singh is residing with me at the when I, my son Hardial Singh as well as other members of the family were sleeping at our ‘Dera’, Manjit Singh @ Sahib my younger son Amrik Singh and resides with ‘Dera’ and while knocking the gate, hurled abuses. I and my son Hardial Singh opened he gate. Manjit Singh went when we came near him, Manjit Singh gave a blow from small hand axe, which he was holding in his hand, on the head of my son Har fell down. When I stepped ahead to save my son, then Manjit Singh blow with axe hitting me near my right eye my other son Amrik Singh and other members of family came to the spot pon which Manjit Singh and his two companions, whom I can recognize if they are produced before me, sat in JKE-9378 and attempted to escape. vehicle got stuck in the fields of paddy. and his companions ran away from the spot on foot. The reason for quarrel is that my younger son Amrik Singh and Manjit Singh are co Sandu). Their father-in-law had expired and they have no brother owever, their mother-in-law was having 7 acres of land and a house. Manjit Singh used to press upon her to transfer the said house and land in his name. On account of said animosity, Manjit Singh and his companions have given beatings and have killed my son Gurdial Singh and have also injured I have got my statement recorded. Action be taken. The aforesaid statement of Sarwan Singh was recorded in the Civil Hospital, by ASI Sukhjit Singh, who had gone to the Civil Hospital upon receipt of intimation from the hospital authorities regarding admission of Hardial Singh (deceased). After recording the statement, the same was sent to the police station for lodging of FIR. Inquest proceedings were conducted. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. thereafter went to the spot and prepared a rough site plan of the place I am a resident of Lakhsian Patti, Village Malsian and am an agriculturist. I have two sons and two daughters, who are all married. My eldest son is residing with me at the ‘Dera’. Today, at about 11.00 PM, well as other members of the family were @ Sahib, who is co-brother (Sandu) my younger son Amrik Singh and resides with his maternal uncle, came and while knocking the gate, hurled abuses. I and my son Hardial Singh opened he gate. Manjit Singh went towards the road and Manjit Singh gave a blow from small hand axe, which he was holding in his hand, on the head of my son Hardial Singh, who fell down. When I stepped ahead to save my son, then Manjit Singh gave a blow with axe hitting me near my right eye-brow. I raised alarm upon which my other son Amrik Singh and other members of family came to the spot Singh and his two companions, whom I can recognize if sat in a ‘Maruti’ van bearing registration 9378 and attempted to escape. However, on account of haste, their vehicle got stuck in the fields of paddy. After leaving the van, Manjit Singh and his companions ran away from the spot on foot. The reason for quarrel my younger son Amrik Singh and Manjit Singh are co-brothers law had expired and they have no brother-in-law. law was having 7 acres of land and a house. Manjit Singh used to press upon her to transfer the said house and land in his , Manjit Singh and his companions have son Gurdial Singh and have also injured . Action be taken.” was recorded in the Civil Hospital, , who had gone to the Civil Hospital upon receipt of intimation from the hospital authorities regarding admission of After recording the statement, the same was sent Inquest proceedings were conducted. mortem examination. ASI Sukhjit thereafter went to the spot and prepared a rough site plan of the place an agriculturist. I have two sons and two daughters, who are all married. My eldest son 11.00 PM, well as other members of the family were of came to and while knocking the gate, hurled abuses. I and my son towards the road and Manjit Singh gave a blow from small hand axe, dial Singh, who gave a I raised alarm upon which my other son Amrik Singh and other members of family came to the spot, Singh and his two companions, whom I can recognize if van bearing registration However, on account of haste, their After leaving the van, Manjit Singh and his companions ran away from the spot on foot. The reason for quarrel brothers law. law was having 7 acres of land and a house. Manjit Singh used to press upon her to transfer the said house and land in his , Manjit Singh and his companions have son Gurdial Singh and have also injured was recorded in the Civil Hospital, , who had gone to the Civil Hospital upon receipt of intimation from the hospital authorities regarding admission of After recording the statement, the same was sent Inquest proceedings were conducted. ASI Sukhjit thereafter went to the spot and prepared a rough site plan of the place VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) of occurrence. Maruti Van bearing registration No.JKE Statements 4. It is further the case of prosecution that the accused was produced by Singh, Sarpanch on 04 investigated the case. carried out by disclosure statement from the nominated place and the same w recovery memo Ex.P 5. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against accused Manjit Singh Class, Nakodar dated 26.08.2002. Learned the accused for offence punishable under Section 07.09.2002 6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The gist of their testimonies is PW-1 HC Sukhjit Singh, his affidavit Ex. P.S. Singh soil apart from other case containing axe was deposited with him by SI Kulwant Singh. further deposed that Jalandhar Inder Singh (O&M) ( 3 ) of occurrence. Blood stained soil was lifted from the place of occurren Maruti Van bearing registration No.JKE-9378 was also taken into possession. of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further the case of prosecution that the accused was produced by Singh, Sarpanch on 04.07.2002 before Inspector Mandip Singh, who partly investigated the case. As per prosecution, carried out by SI Kulwant Singh before whom the disclosure statement as regards concealment of axe, which he got recovered nominated place and the same w recovery memo Ex.PS/2. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against accused Manjit Singh on 03.08.2002 in the Court of Nakodar, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions 26.08.2002. Learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar framed charges accused for offence punishable under Section 07.09.2002 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to herein HC Sukhjit Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PA, wherein he deposed that P.S. Shahkot on 25.06.2002 and that on Singh had deposited with him one parcel containing blood stained soil apart from other case property and that on 08.07.2002, one parcel containing axe was deposited with him by SI Kulwant Singh. further deposed that after preparing a docket from the office of SSP, Jalandhar on 17.07.2002, the case property Inder Singh for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of Blood stained soil was lifted from the place of occurrence. 9378 was also taken into possession. of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further the case of prosecution that the accused was produced by Jasbir Inspector Mandip Singh, who partly As per prosecution, the remaining investigation was SI Kulwant Singh before whom the accused allegedly made a as regards concealment of axe, which he got recovered nominated place and the same was taken into possession vide Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against accused Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist the case to the Court of Sessions vide order Sessions Judge, Jalandhar framed charges against accused for offence punishable under Sections 302/323 IPC on to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 15 PWs being briefly referred to herein under:- formal witness, tendered into evidence , wherein he deposed that he was posted as MHC, and that on the said day, ASI Sukhjit one parcel containing blood stained and that on 08.07.2002, one parcel containing axe was deposited with him by SI Kulwant Singh. He after preparing a docket from the office of SSP, the case property was handed over to HC for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of ce. 9378 was also taken into possession. Jasbir Inspector Mandip Singh, who partly the remaining investigation was accused allegedly made a as regards concealment of axe, which he got recovered taken into possession vide Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against accused learned Judicial Magistrate Ist vide order against IPC on PWs. formal witness, tendered into evidence he was posted as MHC, the said day, ASI Sukhjit one parcel containing blood stained and that on 08.07.2002, one parcel He after preparing a docket from the office of SSP, HC for the purpose of depositing the same in the office of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) FSL, Chandigarh, objections property was again sent to the office of deposited the same day the case property remained in his possession, the same was not tampered with. PW-2 Constable Gurdev Lal evidence his affidavit Ex.P while he was posted at Police Station handed over to him and Singh for getting accordingly got the needful done. PW-3 Dr. Ajay Kumar, conducted Singh described three injuries found on the dead body and opined that per his opinion the cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock due to injury No.3 (on parietal region) individually or in comb sufficient to cause death PW-4 Dr. Vijay Kumar, Medical Officer, SHC Bhuller, PHC Shahkot, had medico legally examined his MLR as person case used from its reverse side PW-5 Hari Singh, Patwari, proved a copy of ownership of Gurnam Kaur. PW-6 Constable Gurdev Singh evidence his affidavit Ex. he was posted on general duty at P.S.Shahkot and that SI Mukhtiar Singh had handed over to him special reports of the present case and (O&M) ( 4 ) FSL, Chandigarh, but could not be deposited on account of certain objections and it was subsequently on property was again sent to the office of deposited the same day through HC Inder Singh the case property remained in his possession, the same was not tampered with. Constable Gurdev Lal, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PB, wherein he deposed that on while he was posted at Police Station handed over to him and to Daljit Singh Singh for getting the post-mortem examination conducted and that he accordingly got the needful done. Dr. Ajay Kumar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Singh on 25.06.2002, proved the post described three injuries found on the dead body and opined that per his opinion the cause of death was due to haemorrhagic shock due to injury No.3 (on parietal region) individually or in combination with other injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Dr. Vijay Kumar, Medical Officer, SHC Bhuller, PHC Shahkot, had medico legally examined Sarwan Singh his MLR as Ex.PF, wherein he described person and stated that injuries could be case used from its reverse side. Hari Singh, Patwari, proved a copy of ownership of Gurnam Kaur. Constable Gurdev Singh, who is evidence his affidavit Ex.PJ, wherein he deposed that he was posted on general duty at P.S.Shahkot and that SI Mukhtiar Singh had handed over to him special reports of the present case and but could not be deposited on account of certain and it was subsequently on 01.08.2002 that the case property was again sent to the office of FSL, Chandigarh, which was through HC Inder Singh and that as long as the case property remained in his possession, the same was not is a formal witness, tendered into , wherein he deposed that on 25.06.2002, while he was posted at Police Station Shahkot, ASI Sukhjit Singh had Daljit Singh the dead body of Hardial mortem examination conducted and that he Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nakodar, who had mortem examination on the dead body of Hardial , proved the post-mortem report as Ex.PC. He described three injuries found on the dead body and opined that per his opinion the cause of death was due to neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock due to injury No.3 (on parietal region) ination with other injuries, which were in ordinary course of nature. Dr. Vijay Kumar, Medical Officer, SHC Bhuller, PHC Shahkot, who Sarwan Singh on 25.06.2002, proved Ex.PF, wherein he described three injuries found on his and stated that injuries could be a result of kulhari (axe) in Hari Singh, Patwari, proved a copy of jamabandi as Ex.PH regarding who is a formal witness, tendered into , wherein he deposed that on 26.06.2002 he was posted on general duty at P.S.Shahkot and that SI Mukhtiar Singh had handed over to him special reports of the present case and but could not be deposited on account of certain that the case , which was and that as long as the case property remained in his possession, the same was not is a formal witness, tendered into 25.06.2002, had Hardial mortem examination conducted and that he who had Hardial . He described three injuries found on the dead body and opined that as neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock due to injury No.3 (on parietal region) ination with other injuries, which were who , proved his (axe) in as Ex.PH regarding formal witness, tendered into 6.06.2002, he was posted on general duty at P.S.Shahkot and that SI Mukhtiar Singh had handed over to him special reports of the present case and VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) that he had to other PW-7 Constable Daljit Singh, evidence his ASI Lal, examination conducted and that he accordingly got the needful done PW-8 Sarwan Singh, who is the complainant in the present case, narrated the occurrence in the same manner as stated by him in the FIR. He specifically stated that on the day of occurrence, the accused had knocked at the door he alongwith his son Hardial Singh opened the door, Manjit Singh went towards the road and when they went near him (Manjit Singh), then he gave a blow with when he (Sarwan accused gave a forehead above the right eye. PW-9 Amrik Singh stated about the occurrence in the same man Sarwan Singh (PW PW-10 Inspector during the course of which he arrested Manjit Singh on who had been produced before him by Jasbir Singh, Sarpanch stated that presented by him. PW-11 Amritpal Singh, Patwari Halqa plan by visiting the spot and proved the same as Ex.PO. PW-12 HC Inder Singh affidavit Ex. Sukhjit Singh stained soil and axe for depositing the same in the office of FSL, (O&M) ( 5 ) that he had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to other higher officers. Constable Daljit Singh, who is also a evidence his affidavit Ex.PK, wherein he deposed that on SI Sukhjit Singh had handed over to him and , the dead body of Hardial Singh for getting the post examination conducted and that he accordingly got the needful done Sarwan Singh, who is the complainant in the present case, narrated the occurrence in the same manner as stated by him in the FIR. He specifically stated that on the day of occurrence, the accused had knocked at the door of their house he alongwith his son Hardial Singh opened the door, Manjit Singh went towards the road and when they went near him (Manjit Singh), then he gave a blow with gandassi when he (Sarwan Singh) stepped forward to save his son, then the accused gave a gandassi blow to him as well forehead above the right eye. Amrik Singh, son of the complainant, stated about the occurrence in the same man Sarwan Singh (PW-8). Inspector Mandip Singh stated that he during the course of which he arrested Manjit Singh on who had been produced before him by Jasbir Singh, Sarpanch stated that upon completion of investigation, challan has been presented by him. Amritpal Singh, Patwari Halqa, stated that he had prepared scaled site plan by visiting the spot and proved the same as Ex.PO. HC Inder Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PQ, wherein he deposed that Sukhjit Singh had handed over to him stained soil and axe for depositing the same in the office of FSL, delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and lso a formal witness, tendered into , wherein he deposed that on 25.06.2002, had handed over to him and to Constable Gurdev Singh for getting the post-mortem examination conducted and that he accordingly got the needful done Sarwan Singh, who is the complainant in the present case, narrated the occurrence in the same manner as stated by him in the FIR. He specifically stated that on the day of occurrence, the accused had house and had hurled abuses and when he alongwith his son Hardial Singh opened the door, Manjit Singh went towards the road and when they went near him (Manjit Singh), on the head of Hardial Singh and Singh) stepped forward to save his son, then the blow to him as well which hit on his , son of the complainant, who is also an eye-witness, stated about the occurrence in the same manner as stated by his father Mandip Singh stated that he had partly investigated the case during the course of which he arrested Manjit Singh on 04.07.2002, who had been produced before him by Jasbir Singh, Sarpanch. He upon completion of investigation, challan has been , stated that he had prepared scaled site plan by visiting the spot and proved the same as Ex.PO. who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his , wherein he deposed that on 22.07.2002, MHC had handed over to him two parcels containing blood stained soil and axe for depositing the same in the office of FSL, delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and formal witness, tendered into 25.06.2002, Constable Gurdev mortem examination conducted and that he accordingly got the needful done. Sarwan Singh, who is the complainant in the present case, narrated the occurrence in the same manner as stated by him in the FIR. He specifically stated that on the day of occurrence, the accused had abuses and when he alongwith his son Hardial Singh opened the door, Manjit Singh went towards the road and when they went near him (Manjit Singh), on the head of Hardial Singh and Singh) stepped forward to save his son, then the which hit on his witness, ner as stated by his father partly investigated the case 04.07.2002, . He upon completion of investigation, challan has been , stated that he had prepared scaled site who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his , MHC two parcels containing blood stained soil and axe for depositing the same in the office of FSL, VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) Chandigarh objections. He further deposed that on again handed over to him for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Chandigarh and that were not tampered with PW-13 SI Kulwant Singh stated that on Investigating Officer Surjit Singh to the place of occurrence and partly investigated the case. He stated that the accused was arrested by SHO Mandip Singh on his interrogation on Singh and Constable Mangat Raj the recovered by leading the police party to the disclosed place. He further deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by him. PW-14 ASI Sukhjit Singh matter and had recorded the statement of the complainant leading to lodging of FIR, stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him. the inquest proceedings and also with regard to taking into possession blood stained soil from the place of occurrence. PW-15 Sukhwinder Singh, Clerk in the office of DTO, Kapurthala the record pertaining to transfer of registration pertaining to bearing registration No.JKE entered in the name of Joginder Singh. 7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., prosecution lead any evidence in his defence. (O&M) ( 6 ) Chandigarh, but could not be deposited objections. He further deposed that on again handed over to him for depositing the same in the office of FSL, Chandigarh, which he accordingly and that as long as the parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with SI Kulwant Singh stated that on Investigating Officer Surjit Singh to the place of occurrence and partly investigated the case. He stated that the accused was arrested by SHO Mandip Singh on 04.07.2002 and that during the course of his interrogation on 08.07.2002 in the presence of Singh and Constable Mangat Raj, he disclosed that he had the Kulhari (axe) near the house of Gurnam Kaur, which he later got recovered by leading the police party to the disclosed place. He further deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by him. ASI Sukhjit Singh, who had initially conducted investigation in the matter and had recorded the statement of the complainant leading to lodging of FIR, stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him. Apart from proving various documents/memos prepared during course of investigation, he stated with regard to the conduct of inquest proceedings and also with regard to taking into possession blood stained soil from the place of occurrence. Sukhwinder Singh, Clerk in the office of DTO, Kapurthala the record pertaining to transfer of registration pertaining to bearing registration No.JKE-9378 and stated that the same was entered in the name of Joginder Singh. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein prosecution and pleaded false implication. lead any evidence in his defence. could not be deposited on account of some objections. He further deposed that on 01.08.2002, the parcels were again handed over to him for depositing the same in the office of accordingly deposited on the same day the parcels remained in his possession, the same SI Kulwant Singh stated that on 25.06.2002, he accompanied Investigating Officer Surjit Singh to the place of occurrence and had partly investigated the case. He stated that the accused was arrested 04.07.2002 and that during the course of 08.07.2002 in the presence of HC Balwinder , he disclosed that he had concealed near the house of Gurnam Kaur, which he later got recovered by leading the police party to the disclosed place. He further deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by him. , who had initially conducted investigation in the matter and had recorded the statement of the complainant leading to lodging of FIR, stated with regard to the investigation conducted by Apart from proving various documents/memos prepared during stated with regard to the conduct of inquest proceedings and also with regard to taking into possession blood stained soil from the place of occurrence. Sukhwinder Singh, Clerk in the office of DTO, Kapurthala, produced the record pertaining to transfer of registration pertaining to vehicle 9378 and stated that the same was entered in the name of Joginder Singh. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused was wherein he denied the entire case false implication. The accused, however, did not on account of some parcels were again handed over to him for depositing the same in the office of on the same day the parcels remained in his possession, the same , he accompanied had partly investigated the case. He stated that the accused was arrested 04.07.2002 and that during the course of HC Balwinder concealed near the house of Gurnam Kaur, which he later got recovered by leading the police party to the disclosed place. He further deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by him. , who had initially conducted investigation in the matter and had recorded the statement of the complainant leading to lodging of FIR, stated with regard to the investigation conducted by Apart from proving various documents/memos prepared during stated with regard to the conduct of inquest proceedings and also with regard to taking into possession , produced vehicle 9378 and stated that the same was was entire case of The accused, however, did not VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) 8. The learned trial Court held that the prosecution had f accused and consequently, held him guilty for having committed offence under Section 9. Learned counsel for the submitted that on account accused, which has been stated in the FIR itself. Learned that the manner of occurrence indicates that at best it is a case where the accused had hurled some abuses outside the house of the deceased and had left from there and it was subsequently that Sarwan Singh (complainant) accompanied by h walked upto the road to the place slightly away from the house where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, which would clearly indicate that it is not the accused, who had initiated the further submitted that both the (complainant) and Amrik Singh father and brother of Hardial Singh (deceased) and since himself says that there was some kind of enmity apparent that on account of said alleged enmity, the accused has been falsely implicated. 10. Opposing the on direct evi Amrik Singh (O&M) ( 7 ) The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the the prosecution had fully established the charges framed against the accused and consequently, held him guilty for having committed offence under Sections 302 & 323 IPC vide impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case apparently the animosity between complainant’s son , which has been stated in the FIR itself. Learned that the manner of occurrence indicates that at best it is a case where the accused had hurled some abuses outside the house of the deceased and had from there and it was subsequently that Sarwan Singh (complainant) accompanied by his eldest son Hardial Singh (deceased) opened the gate and walked upto the road to the place slightly away from the house where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, which would clearly indicate that it is not the accused, who had initiated the further submitted that both the eye-witnesses i.e. (complainant) and Amrik Singh in any case are interested witnesses being father and brother of Hardial Singh (deceased) and since says that there was some kind of enmity apparent that on account of said alleged enmity, the accused has been falsely implicated. Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case based on direct evidence wherein two PWs i.e. PW Amrik Singh have given a consistent account of the occurrence and marshalling the evidence brought on record, ully established the charges framed against the accused and consequently, held him guilty for having committed offence vide impugned judgment. while assailing the impugned judgment, he has falsely been implicated in the present case apparently complainant’s son Amrik Singh and the , which has been stated in the FIR itself. Learned counsel submitted that the manner of occurrence indicates that at best it is a case where the accused had hurled some abuses outside the house of the deceased and had from there and it was subsequently that Sarwan Singh (complainant) is eldest son Hardial Singh (deceased) opened the gate and walked upto the road to the place slightly away from the house where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, which would clearly indicate that it is not the accused, who had initiated the alleged fight. Learned counsel witnesses i.e. PW-8 Sarwan Singh in any case are interested witnesses being father and brother of Hardial Singh (deceased) and since the complainant says that there was some kind of enmity between them, therefore, it is apparent that on account of said alleged enmity, the accused has been falsely appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case based dence wherein two PWs i.e. PW-8 Sarwan Singh and PW have given a consistent account of the occurrence and that both brought on record, ully established the charges framed against the accused and consequently, held him guilty for having committed offences impugned judgment, he has falsely been implicated in the present case apparently Amrik Singh and the counsel submitted that the manner of occurrence indicates that at best it is a case where the accused had hurled some abuses outside the house of the deceased and had from there and it was subsequently that Sarwan Singh (complainant) is eldest son Hardial Singh (deceased) opened the gate and walked upto the road to the place slightly away from the house where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, which would clearly indicate that it Learned counsel 8 Sarwan Singh in any case are interested witnesses being the complainant , therefore, it is apparent that on account of said alleged enmity, the accused has been falsely appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case based 8 Sarwan Singh and PW-9 both VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) of them are natural witnesses inasmuch as they were residing in the same house as the deceased being his father and brother. submitted that in these circumstances, the findings of guilt as recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity and ought to be upheld. 11. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. 12. It is apposite to first of all refer to the medical evidence led by the prosecution as regards Ajay Kumar, who had body of Hardial under: “1. A brownish black contusion measuring 5 cm x 3 cm was present in the left mammary area. 2. A brownish black left side of the chest 4 cm medial to left nipple. 3. An incised wound measuring 6 cm x 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm was present on the left parietal region. Wound was obliquely placed and 1 cm from midline underlyin 13. A perusal of the description of injuries shows that while injuries No.1 & 2 are merely in the nature of abrasions, injury No.3 is in the nature of an incised wound measuring 6 cm x 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the left parietal region. Dr. Ajay Kumar brain matter was inflamed and torn was present in weapon, PW (O&M) ( 8 ) are natural witnesses inasmuch as they were residing in the same as the deceased being his father and brother. submitted that in these circumstances, the findings of guilt as recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity and ought to be We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. It is apposite to first of all refer to the medical evidence led by the prosecution as regards alleged homicidal death Ajay Kumar, who had conducted the post- Hardial Singh, described the injuries found on A brownish black contusion measuring 5 cm x 3 cm was present in the left mammary area. A brownish black linear abrasion measuring left side of the chest 4 cm medial to left nipple. An incised wound measuring 6 cm x 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm was present on the left parietal region. Wound was obliquely placed and 1 cm from midline underlying bone was cut.” A perusal of the description of injuries shows that while injuries No.1 & 2 are merely in the nature of abrasions, injury No.3 is in the nature of an incised wound measuring 6 cm x 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the left parietal region. Ajay Kumar further stated that underlying bone was rain matter was inflamed and torn and a haemotoma measuring 5 cm x 3 cm was present in the surrounding area. Upon being shown the recovered weapon, PW-3 Dr. Ajay Kumar opined that possibility of injury No.3 having are natural witnesses inasmuch as they were residing in the same as the deceased being his father and brother. Learned State counsel submitted that in these circumstances, the findings of guilt as have been recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity and ought to be We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. It is apposite to first of all refer to the medical evidence led by the alleged homicidal death of Hardial Singh. PW-3 Dr. -mortem examination on the dead Singh, described the injuries found on the dead body as A brownish black contusion measuring 5 cm x 3 cm was present in the left abrasion measuring 5 cm x .5 cm was present on the left side of the chest 4 cm medial to left nipple. An incised wound measuring 6 cm x 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm was present on the left parietal region. Wound was obliquely placed and 1 cm from midline A perusal of the description of injuries shows that while injuries No.1 & 2 are merely in the nature of abrasions, injury No.3 is in the nature of an incised wound measuring 6 cm x 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm on the left parietal region. PW that underlying bone was found to be cut and haemotoma measuring 5 cm x 3 cm Upon being shown the recovered 3 Dr. Ajay Kumar opined that possibility of injury No.3 having are natural witnesses inasmuch as they were residing in the same Learned State counsel have been recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity and ought to be with It is apposite to first of all refer to the medical evidence led by the Dr. mortem examination on the dead dead body as A brownish black contusion measuring 5 cm x 3 cm was present in the left 5 cm x .5 cm was present on the An incised wound measuring 6 cm x 1.5 cm x 2.5 cm was present on the left parietal region. Wound was obliquely placed and 1 cm from midline A perusal of the description of injuries shows that while injuries No.1 & 2 are merely in the nature of abrasions, injury No.3 is in the nature of an incised PW-3 and haemotoma measuring 5 cm x 3 cm Upon being shown the recovered 3 Dr. Ajay Kumar opined that possibility of injury No.3 having VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) been caused with said weapon could not be ruled out. He further opined that in his opinion the cause of death was due to neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock due to injury No.3 (on parietal region) individually or in combination with other injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 14. The witness was briefly substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross to either doubt his veracity or his opinion. of injuries are clearly in tune with the ocular version as per which the accused is alleged to have inflicte As such, we find that the medical evidence led by the prosecution is in tune with the case of prosecution regarding an injury having been inflicted with an axe on the head of the deceased leading to his de 15. Coming to the ocular version, we find that it is the specific case of the prosecution that on the day of occurrence i.e. the accused had knocked the door of the house of complainant while hurling abuses and when (deceased) perusal of the site plan Ex.P situated in the fields, a road. The distance of about 25 the FIR, when Sarwan Singh (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh (deceased) went t (O&M) ( 9 ) been caused with said weapon could not be ruled out. He further opined that opinion the cause of death was due to neurogenic and haemorrhagic hock due to injury No.3 (on parietal region) individually or in combination with other injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of The witness was briefly cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing l could be elicited during the course of his cross to either doubt his veracity or his opinion. of injuries are clearly in tune with the ocular version as per which the accused is alleged to have inflicted a blow with an axe on the head of the deceased. As such, we find that the medical evidence led by the prosecution is in tune with the case of prosecution regarding an injury having been inflicted with an axe on the head of the deceased leading to his de Coming to the ocular version, we find that it is the specific case of the prosecution that on the day of occurrence i.e. the accused had knocked the door of the house of complainant while hurling abuses and when Sarwan Singh (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh opened the gate, the accused proceeded towards the road. A perusal of the site plan Ex.PU shows that the house of the complainant is in the fields, a little away from the road road. The point ‘A’, where the occurrence had taken place distance of about 25-30 feet from the gate of house of complainant the FIR, when Sarwan Singh (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh went towards the accused, who was on road and reached near him, been caused with said weapon could not be ruled out. He further opined that opinion the cause of death was due to neurogenic and haemorrhagic hock due to injury No.3 (on parietal region) individually or in combination with other injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing l could be elicited during the course of his cross-examination so as to either doubt his veracity or his opinion. The evidence and the description of injuries are clearly in tune with the ocular version as per which the accused d a blow with an axe on the head of the deceased. As such, we find that the medical evidence led by the prosecution is in tune with the case of prosecution regarding an injury having been inflicted with an axe on the head of the deceased leading to his death. Coming to the ocular version, we find that it is the specific case of the prosecution that on the day of occurrence i.e. 24.06.2002 at about 11.00 PM, the accused had knocked the door of the house of complainant while hurling Sarwan Singh (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh opened the gate, the accused proceeded towards the road. A shows that the house of the complainant is little away from the road although the fields abut the where the occurrence had taken place would be at a 30 feet from the gate of house of complainant. As per the FIR, when Sarwan Singh (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh owards the accused, who was on road and reached near him, been caused with said weapon could not be ruled out. He further opined that opinion the cause of death was due to neurogenic and haemorrhagic hock due to injury No.3 (on parietal region) individually or in combination with other injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing examination so as The evidence and the description of injuries are clearly in tune with the ocular version as per which the accused d a blow with an axe on the head of the deceased. As such, we find that the medical evidence led by the prosecution is in tune with the case of prosecution regarding an injury having been inflicted with an Coming to the ocular version, we find that it is the specific case of the 24.06.2002 at about 11.00 PM, the accused had knocked the door of the house of complainant while hurling Sarwan Singh (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh opened the gate, the accused proceeded towards the road. A shows that the house of the complainant is gh the fields abut the would be at a As per the FIR, when Sarwan Singh (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh owards the accused, who was on road and reached near him, VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) accused Manjit Singh gave a blow with an axe on the head of Hardial Singh. It is further the case of prosecution that when the complainant tried to save his son Hardial Singh, the accused inflicted near his right eye witness-box as PW from his statement reads as under: “………….He came to our us, at which I and my son Hardial Singh opened the gate and came out. Manjit Singh went towards the road Singh. Manjit Singh gave a on the head of my son Hardial Singh, at which my son Hardial Singh fell on the ground on receipt of injury, I stepped forward to save my son, he then gave me a eye……….. 16. The other eye The relevant extract from his statement reads as under: “………… started abusing us. My father Sarwan Singh and brother Hardial Singh opened the doo passage which goes to that village. went behind him and I also followed near Manjit Singh, he gave a when my father intervened Manjit Singh again gave a forehead of my father. Hardial Singh received injury as a result of blow in the head and he fell down after receipt 17. A perusal of the aforesaid statements of PW Amrik Singh shows that they have stated consistently regarding the manner of occurrence. It is borne out that the accused after knocking at the door of the complainant’s house went away t (O&M) ( 10 ) accused Manjit Singh gave a blow with an axe on the head of Hardial Singh. It is further the case of prosecution that when the complainant tried to save his son Hardial Singh, the accused inflicted near his right eye-brow. When Sarwan Singh (complainant) stepped into the box as PW-8, he stated identically to this effect. The relevant extract from his statement reads as under: ………….He came to our Dera and knocked our outer door and he abused us, at which I and my son Hardial Singh opened the gate and came out. Manjit Singh went towards the road. I and Hardial Singh went near Manjit Singh. Manjit Singh gave a gandassi blow which he was holding in his on the head of my son Hardial Singh, at which my son Hardial Singh fell on the ground on receipt of injury, I stepped forward to save my son, he then gave me a gandassi blow which hit on the forehead above the right eye………..” The other eye-witness, namely, PW-9 Amrik Singh also stated identically. The relevant extract from his statement reads as under: …………He came to our Dera and knocked the door of our started abusing us. My father Sarwan Singh and brother Hardial Singh opened the door (gate). Manjit Singh started going towards Malsian on the passage which goes to that village. My father and my brother Hardial Singh went behind him and I also followed. When my father and brother went near Manjit Singh, he gave a gandassi blow to my when my father intervened Manjit Singh again gave a forehead of my father. Hardial Singh received injury as a result of blow in the head and he fell down after receipt of injury……… A perusal of the aforesaid statements of PW Amrik Singh shows that they have stated consistently regarding the manner of occurrence. It is borne out that the accused after knocking at the door of the complainant’s house went away towards road and when Sarwan Singh accused Manjit Singh gave a blow with an axe on the head of Hardial Singh. It is further the case of prosecution that when the complainant tried to save his son Hardial Singh, the accused inflicted a blow to him as well on his face brow. When Sarwan Singh (complainant) stepped into the 8, he stated identically to this effect. The relevant extract and knocked our outer door and he abused us, at which I and my son Hardial Singh opened the gate and came out. . I and Hardial Singh went near Manjit blow which he was holding in his hand on the head of my son Hardial Singh, at which my son Hardial Singh fell on the ground on receipt of injury, I stepped forward to save my son, he then blow which hit on the forehead above the right 9 Amrik Singh also stated identically. The relevant extract from his statement reads as under: and knocked the door of our Dera and started abusing us. My father Sarwan Singh and brother Hardial Singh r (gate). Manjit Singh started going towards Malsian on the My father and my brother Hardial Singh . When my father and brother went blow to my brother Hardial Singh and when my father intervened Manjit Singh again gave a gandassi blow on the forehead of my father. Hardial Singh received injury as a result of blow in of injury………” A perusal of the aforesaid statements of PW-8 Sarwan Singh and PW Amrik Singh shows that they have stated consistently regarding the manner of occurrence. It is borne out that the accused after knocking at the door of owards road and when Sarwan Singh accused Manjit Singh gave a blow with an axe on the head of Hardial Singh. It is further the case of prosecution that when the complainant tried to save a blow to him as well on his face brow. When Sarwan Singh (complainant) stepped into the 8, he stated identically to this effect. The relevant extract and knocked our outer door and he abused us, at which I and my son Hardial Singh opened the gate and came out. . I and Hardial Singh went near Manjit hand on the head of my son Hardial Singh, at which my son Hardial Singh fell on the ground on receipt of injury, I stepped forward to save my son, he then blow which hit on the forehead above the right 9 Amrik Singh also stated identically. and started abusing us. My father Sarwan Singh and brother Hardial Singh r (gate). Manjit Singh started going towards Malsian on the My father and my brother Hardial Singh . When my father and brother went and blow on the forehead of my father. Hardial Singh received injury as a result of blow in 8 Sarwan Singh and PW-9 Amrik Singh shows that they have stated consistently regarding the manner of occurrence. It is borne out that the accused after knocking at the door of owards road and when Sarwan Singh VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh (deceased) opened the door and went towards the accused, who was a little away, the accused inflicted a blow with axe on the head of Hardial Singh. Both the Sarwan Singh and PW behalf of the accused, course of their cross 18. At this stage, it is prosecution with regard to the injuries found on the person of Sarwan Singh (complainant). The prosecution has examined PW stated that on examined Sarwan “1. A lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 cm on right side of forehead 1 cm above the lateral end of right eye brow. Wound was bone deep. Blood clot was present in the wound. 2. A lacerated wound 1 x 1/4 cm on t phalnx. Wound was vertical in direction. Blood clot was present in wound. 3. An abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm on right knee joint. Anterialy blood clot was present in the wound. 19. Sarwan Singh (complainant) was medico about 12.15 AM, which would mean that barely about 1 hour & 15 minutes after the occurrence. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to doubt the factum of existence of injuries on the person of Singh and which would make him a stamped witness whose testimony cannot be doubted unless there is something very convincing to contradict the same. The aforesaid witness i.e. PW examined briefly, but there is not Having regard to the (O&M) ( 11 ) (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh (deceased) opened the door and went towards the accused, who was a little away, the accused inflicted a blow with axe on the head of Hardial Singh. Both the Sarwan Singh and PW-9 Amrik Singh were cross behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of their cross-examination. stage, it is also apposite to refer to the medical evidence led prosecution with regard to the injuries found on the person of Sarwan Singh (complainant). The prosecution has examined PW stated that on 25.06.2002 at about 12.15 AM examined Sarwan Singh and found the following injuries on his person: A lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 cm on right side of forehead 1 cm above the lateral end of right eye brow. Wound was bone deep. Blood clot was present in the wound. A lacerated wound 1 x 1/4 cm on the right thumb on medial aspect of distal phalnx. Wound was vertical in direction. Blood clot was present in wound. An abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm on right knee joint. Anterialy blood clot was present in the wound.” Sarwan Singh (complainant) was medico legally examined on 25.06.2002 at about 12.15 AM, which would mean that barely about 1 hour & 15 minutes after the occurrence. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to doubt the factum of existence of injuries on the person of Singh and which would make him a stamped witness whose testimony cannot be doubted unless there is something very convincing to contradict the same. The aforesaid witness i.e. PW-4 Dr. Vijay Kumar was formally cross examined briefly, but there is nothing substantial to doubt his testimony. Having regard to the consistent testimonies of PW (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh (deceased) opened the door and went towards the accused, who was a little away, the accused inflicted a blow with axe on the head of Hardial Singh. Both the said witnesses i.e. PW were cross-examined at length on but nothing substantial could be elicited during the apposite to refer to the medical evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the injuries found on the person of Sarwan Singh (complainant). The prosecution has examined PW-4 Dr. Vijay Kumar, who 25.06.2002 at about 12.15 AM, he had medico legally Singh and found the following injuries on his person: A lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 cm on right side of forehead 1 cm above the lateral end of right eye brow. Wound was bone deep. Blood clot was he right thumb on medial aspect of distal phalnx. Wound was vertical in direction. Blood clot was present in wound. An abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm on right knee joint. Anterialy blood clot was present legally examined on 25.06.2002 at about 12.15 AM, which would mean that barely about 1 hour & 15 minutes after the occurrence. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to doubt the factum of existence of injuries on the person of Sarwan Singh and which would make him a stamped witness whose testimony cannot be doubted unless there is something very convincing to contradict the same. Vijay Kumar was formally cross hing substantial to doubt his testimony. consistent testimonies of PW-8 Sarwan Singh (complainant) and his son Hardial Singh (deceased) opened the door and went towards the accused, who was a little away, the accused inflicted a blow said witnesses i.e. PW-8 examined at length on but nothing substantial could be elicited during the by the prosecution with regard to the injuries found on the person of Sarwan Singh , who , he had medico legally A lacerated wound 3 x 1/2 cm on right side of forehead 1 cm above the lateral end of right eye brow. Wound was bone deep. Blood clot was he right thumb on medial aspect of distal phalnx. Wound was vertical in direction. Blood clot was present in wound. An abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm on right knee joint. Anterialy blood clot was present legally examined on 25.06.2002 at about 12.15 AM, which would mean that barely about 1 hour & 15 minutes after the occurrence. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any rwan Singh and which would make him a stamped witness whose testimony cannot be doubted unless there is something very convincing to contradict the same. Vijay Kumar was formally cross- hing substantial to doubt his testimony. 8 Sarwan Singh VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) (complainant) as well as other eye with the medical evidence, there is no manner of doubt as regards the fact t it is the accused, who had inflicted an injury on the head of Hardial Singh (deceased) leading to his death and had also injured the complainant. 20. However, the material question which still survives is as to whether the homicidal death caused by the accused/appellant would attract an offence under Section 302 IPC or as to whether it would attract a lesser offence in terms of Section 304 IPC. Exceptions is reproduced herein under: “300. Murder. murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or Secondly knows t Thirdly. the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or Fourthly that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Exception 1.- the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mis The above exception is subject to the following provisos: (O&M) ( 12 ) (complainant) as well as other eye-witness i.e. PW with the medical evidence, there is no manner of doubt as regards the fact t it is the accused, who had inflicted an injury on the head of Hardial Singh (deceased) leading to his death and had also injured the complainant. However, the material question which still survives is as to whether the homicidal death caused by the accused/appellant would attract an offence under Section 302 IPC or as to whether it would attract a lesser offence in terms of Section 304 IPC. In this context, reference needs to be made to to “murder” carved out under Section 300 IPC. Section 300 IPC is reproduced herein under: 300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or – Secondly. - It is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or . - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or – Fourthly. - If the person committing the act knows that it is so that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. When culpable homicide is not murder. the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mis The above exception is subject to the following provisos: First. - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly. - That the provocation is not to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly. - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation. - Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. witness i.e. PW-9 Amrik Singh coupled with the medical evidence, there is no manner of doubt as regards the fact that it is the accused, who had inflicted an injury on the head of Hardial Singh (deceased) leading to his death and had also injured the complainant. However, the material question which still survives is as to whether the homicidal death caused by the accused/appellant would attract an offence under Section 302 IPC or as to whether it would attract a lesser offence in context, reference needs to be made to to “murder” carved out under Section 300 IPC. Section 300 IPC Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing It is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender o be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing homicide is not murder. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos:- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. coupled hat it is the accused, who had inflicted an injury on the head of Hardial Singh However, the material question which still survives is as to whether the homicidal death caused by the accused/appellant would attract an offence under Section 302 IPC or as to whether it would attract a lesser offence in context, reference needs to be made to to “murder” carved out under Section 300 IPC. Section 300 IPC Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing It is done with intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender o be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or – If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing Culpable homicide is not murder if control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) Exception 2. faith of the right of private given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm that in necessary for the purpos defence. Exception 3. aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act whi in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill death is caused. Exception 4. - a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner Explanation provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5. being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk with his own consent 21. The evidence clearly shows that the accused had come to the house of Sarwan Singh (complainant) and hurled abuses while knocking the door but when the complainant (PW (deceased) towards the road blow with an axe on the head of Hardial Singh (deceased) is on the road at a s The aforesaid conduct of the accused in having moved away from the gate of complainant’s house where occurrence had taken place, shows that at th any intention to kill the deceased. It was subsequently when the complainant and his son Hardial Singh went upto him with an axe to the deceased on his head. inflicted when (O&M) ( 13 ) - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm that in necessary for the purpos defence. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act whi in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill death is caused. - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without prem a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation. - It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. - Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk with his own consent.” he evidence clearly shows that the accused had come to the house of Sarwan Singh (complainant) and hurled abuses while knocking the door the complainant (PW-8 Sarwan Singh) opened the gate, the accused had towards the road. As depicted in the site plan blow with an axe on the head of Hardial Singh (deceased) is on the road at a short distance away from the gate of house of complainant. The aforesaid conduct of the accused in having moved away from the gate of complainant’s house after hurling abuses and having moved upto the road where occurrence had taken place, shows that at th any intention to kill the deceased. It was subsequently when the complainant and his son Hardial Singh went upto him that the accused gave a with an axe to the deceased on his head. when Sarwan Singh (complainant) and Hardial Singh (deceased) Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm that in necessary for the purpose of such Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death he evidence clearly shows that the accused had come to the house of Sarwan Singh (complainant) and hurled abuses while knocking the door of the house 8 Sarwan Singh) and his son Hardial Singh , the accused had already moved from the gate the site plan Ex.PU, the accused inflicted a blow with an axe on the head of Hardial Singh (deceased) at Point ‘A’, which hort distance away from the gate of house of complainant. The aforesaid conduct of the accused in having moved away from the gate of after hurling abuses and having moved upto the road where occurrence had taken place, shows that at that stage he did not have any intention to kill the deceased. It was subsequently when the complainant that the accused gave a single blow with an axe to the deceased on his head. It appears that the injury was Sarwan Singh (complainant) and Hardial Singh (deceased) Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any e of such Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds ch he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his will towards the person whose editation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, of death he evidence clearly shows that the accused had come to the house of Sarwan of the house, Singh already moved from the gate the accused inflicted a at Point ‘A’, which hort distance away from the gate of house of complainant. The aforesaid conduct of the accused in having moved away from the gate of after hurling abuses and having moved upto the road at stage he did not have any intention to kill the deceased. It was subsequently when the complainant blow the injury was Sarwan Singh (complainant) and Hardial Singh (deceased) VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) confronted the accused for having hurled abuses their house. from the house of intention to kill the deceased. Upon being confronted or challenged, he inflicted one blow with axe on head of deceased, which proved fatal. aforesaid facts suggest that it is a case which wou Exception 4 of Section 300 attract and not an offence guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 304 Part 22. As far as conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for having inflicted simple hurt to Sarwan Singh (complainant) is concerned, stated about the accused hav forehead above his right eye. witness, has also stated identically. statement of PW legally examined Sarwan Singh establishes the factum of existence of injury on the person of Sarwan Singh. There is nothing on record to doubt either the ocular version set Sarwan Singh (compl evidence. Consequently, we do not find findings of guilt of the accused as regards offence under Section 323 IPC and the same are hereby affirmed. (O&M) ( 14 ) confronted the accused for having hurled abuses . As stated above, the act of the accused in having moved away from the house of complainant shows that till that point of time he had no intention to kill the deceased. Upon being confronted or challenged, he inflicted one blow with axe on head of deceased, which proved fatal. aforesaid facts suggest that it is a case which wou Exception 4 of Section 300 attracting an offence under Section 304 Part and not an offence under Section 302 IPC. guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 304 Part As far as conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for having inflicted simple hurt to Sarwan Singh (complainant) is concerned, PW-8 Sarwan Singh while in the witness box has categorically stated about the accused having inflicted injur forehead above his right eye. His son i.e. PW witness, has also stated identically. The medical evidence in the shape of statement of PW-4 Dr. Vijay Kumar, Medical Officer, legally examined Sarwan Singh (complainant) on establishes the factum of existence of injury on the person of Sarwan Singh. There is nothing on record to doubt either the ocular version set Sarwan Singh (complainant) and his son evidence. Consequently, we do not find findings of guilt of the accused as regards offence under Section 323 IPC and the same are hereby affirmed. confronted the accused for having hurled abuses after knocking at the gate of As stated above, the act of the accused in having moved away complainant shows that till that point of time he had no intention to kill the deceased. Upon being confronted or challenged, he inflicted one blow with axe on head of deceased, which proved fatal. The aforesaid facts suggest that it is a case which would fall within the ambit of an offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC under Section 302 IPC. As such, the accused/appellant is guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC. As far as conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for having inflicted simple hurt to Sarwan Singh (complainant) is 8 Sarwan Singh while in the witness box has categorically ing inflicted injury to him with a gandassi on his His son i.e. PW-9 Amrik Singh, who is an eye The medical evidence in the shape of , Medical Officer, who had medico (complainant) on 25.06.2002 also fully establishes the factum of existence of injury on the person of Sarwan Singh. There is nothing on record to doubt either the ocular version set-forth ainant) and his son Amrik Singh or the medical evidence. Consequently, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of guilt of the accused as regards offence under Section 323 IPC and gate of As stated above, the act of the accused in having moved away complainant shows that till that point of time he had no intention to kill the deceased. Upon being confronted or challenged, he The ld fall within the ambit of I IPC As such, the accused/appellant is C. As far as conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 323 IPC for having inflicted simple hurt to Sarwan Singh (complainant) is 8 Sarwan Singh while in the witness box has categorically on his , who is an eye- The medical evidence in the shape of who had medico 25.06.2002 also fully establishes the factum of existence of injury on the person of Sarwan Singh. by Amrik Singh or the medical any ground to interfere with the findings of guilt of the accused as regards offence under Section 323 IPC and VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-566-DB-2004 (O&M) 23. As a sequel to the disc recorded by the trial Court is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. The sentence of imprisonment for life is also reduced to RI for years. The fine, however, shall remain unalter for offence under Section 323 IPC shall also remained unaltered and shall run concurrently alongwith sentence for 24. The period already undergone shall, however, be set off against the sentence imposed. The accused be arrested to undergo the remaining sentence. 25. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly accepted to the extent indicated above. 26. A copy of this judgme compliance 22.05.2025 Vimal (O&M) ( 15 ) As a sequel to the discussion made above, recorded by the trial Court is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 I IPC. The sentence of imprisonment for life is also reduced to RI for years. The fine, however, shall remain unalter for offence under Section 323 IPC shall also remained unaltered and shall run concurrently alongwith sentence for offence under Section 304 Part The period already undergone shall, however, be set off against the sentence imposed. The accused be arrested to undergo the remaining sentence. rdingly, the appeal stands partly accepted to the extent indicated above. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned compliance. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: ussion made above, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 I IPC. The sentence of imprisonment for life is also reduced to RI for years. The fine, however, shall remain unaltered. The sentence as imposed for offence under Section 323 IPC shall also remained unaltered and shall run offence under Section 304 Part-I IPC. The period already undergone shall, however, be set off against the sentence imposed. The accused be arrested to undergo the remaining sentence. rdingly, the appeal stands partly accepted to the extent indicated above. nt be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 10 The sentence as imposed for offence under Section 323 IPC shall also remained unaltered and shall run The period already undergone shall, however, be set off against the sentence rdingly, the appeal stands partly accepted to the extent indicated above. for necessary VIMAL KUMAR 2025.05.23 13:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document