GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

362                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 362              [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A                   GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC.
                                       v.
                       STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
                   (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2301-2302 of 2014)
B                                MAY 08, 2018
              [RANJAN GOGOI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part I, 300 Exception 4, 302 r/w 34
      – Murder – Parties assembled to settle land dispute – Exchange of
      words resulting in scuffle between the parties – Appellant G brought
C
      axe from the room – Appellant S held the victim from arms and G
      inflicted axe blow to victim on his head – Appellants also sustained
      injuries – Complaint lodged after five days – Victim succumbed to
      his injuries a month later – Conviction of accused G u/s. 302 and
      accused S u/s. 302 r/w s. 34 and sentenced accordingly – Upheld
D     by the High Court – On appeal, held: Since both the accused
      sustained injuries in the incident, non-explanation of injuries
      sustained by the accused assumes significance – There was no
      provocation from either side – Exchange of words resulted in scuffle
      – Evidence of the doctor that the victim was drunk at the time of the
      incident – It was in this circumstance, appellant G went inside the
E
      room and brought an axe and hit on the head of the victim – No
      clear evidence as to who started the attack – Both the parties were
      unarmed – Though accused G used the axe but victim survived for
      about one month – Appellants thus, did not take undue advantage
      of the same – There was also a delay of five days in lodging the FIR
F     – Act of the accused would fall under “exception 4” to s. 300 –
      Weapon used in the manner in which the injury was inflicted clearly
      establish that the appellants intended to cause the injury which
      was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – In
      view thereof, the conviction of the appellants u/s. 302 read with s.
      34 modified to one u/s. 304 Part-I and sentenced to imprisonment
G
      for seven years.
            Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 When there was exchange of words, there was
      a scuffle between both the parties. In the same transaction where
H
                                     362
  GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       363
                   AND ANR.

‘H’ was attacked, the accused party also sustained injuries. Apart     A
from the stray, the statement made by the complainant in the
FIR, the prosecution has not offered any explanation for the
injuries sustained by the accused. Since both the accused
sustained injuries in the incident, non-explanation of injuries
sustained by the accused assumes significance. Having regard
                                                                       B
to the injuries sustained by the accused, the trial court and the
High Court ought to have made an effort in searching out genesis
of the occurrence. [Para 12][368-H; 369-A-B]
      Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and
      Others (2001) 6 SCC 145 – referred to.
                                                                       C
      1.2 From the evidence, it is clear that both families have
assembled and they were talking near the tubewell to resolve
the land dispute. There was no provocation from either side. In
his evidence, PW-6 has clearly stated that there was exchange of
words which resulted in scuffle between both the parties. It has
come from the evidence of the doctor that ‘H’ was drunk at the         D
time of the incident. It is in this circumstance, appellant ‘GS’ had
gone inside the room adjacent to the tubewell and brought an
axe and hit on the head of deceased ‘H’. Accused also sustained
injuries in the same incident. [Para 13][369-C-D]
       1.3 There is no clear evidence as to who started the attack.    E
Both the parties were unarmed. When there was exchange of
words between both the parties, accused ‘GS’ went inside the
room and brought an axe and caused head injuries to ‘H’. From
the post-mortem certificate, it is seen that deceased ‘H’ sustained
head injuries with multiple fractures, right fronto temporal and       F
temporo parietal region in the right fronto temporo parietal region
of the brain, haemorrhagic contusions in bilateral temporal region
and right parietal region. However, deceased ‘H’ survived for
about one month and he succumbed to injuries on 01.12.2007.
Though accused ‘GS’ used the axe which is a formidable weapon,
but ‘H’ survived for about one month. The appellants therefore         G
cannot be said to have taken undue advantage of the same. There
was also a delay of five days in lodging the FIR; the reason being,
talks were still going on for settling the matter. Considering the
totality of the circumstances, the act of the accused would fall
under “Exception 4” to Section 300 IPC. [Para 14][369-E-H]             H
364            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A           Bhuyan v. State of Orissa (2004) 11 SCC 395 :
            [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 395 – referred to.
             1.4 The third clause of Section 300 IPC consists of two
      parts. Under the first part, it must be proved that there was an
      intention to inflict the injury that is present and under the second
B     part, it must be proved that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary
      course of nature to cause death. The deceased sustained head
      injuries with multiple fractures, right fronto temporal and temporo
      parietal region infarct in the right fronto temporo parietal region
      of the brain, hemorrhagic contusions in bilateral temporal region
      and right parietal region. The weapon used in the manner in which
C     the injury was inflicted clearly establishes that the appellants
      intended to cause the injury which is sufficient in the ordinary
      course of nature to cause death. Having regard to the facts and
      circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellants under
      Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is modified as conviction
D     under Section 304 Part-I IPC and the appellants are sentenced
      to undergo imprisonment for seven years. [Paras 17-19][371-D-
      E; 372-B-C, D]
            Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 3 SCC
            317 : [2016] 4 SCR 627 – referred to.
E                             Case Law Reference
            (2001) 6 SCC 145              referred to         Para 11
            [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 395       referred to         Para 16
            [2016] 4 SCR 627              referred to         Para 17
F

            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      Nos. 2301-2302 of 2014.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2012 of the High Court
G     of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA No. 1176 DB of 2010 and
      1222 DB of 2010.
            Ahmed Faraz Khan, Deepak Goel, Advs for the Appellants.
           Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Ms. Shraddha
      Bhargava, Mohit D. Ram, Advs for the Respondents.
H
  GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                            365
                   AND ANR.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            A
      R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment
dated 17.12.2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in CRA No.1176 DB of 2010 and CRA No.1222 DB of
2010 in and by which the High Court affirmed the conviction of the
appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentence      B
passed by the trial Court.
       2. Case of the prosecution is that Sukhwinder Singh (PW-6) is the
son of deceased Harbhajan Singh. Satnam Singh who is the younger
brother of deceased Harbhajan Singh is residing separately in the village
and other two younger brothers of Harbhajan Singh have gone to Italy.       C
The land falling to other brothers’ share is being cultivated by Satnam
Singh; but they desired that their land should be cultivated by Harbhajan
Singh. For amicable settlement, the matter went to the Panchayat several
times; but could not be solved. Few days prior to the occurrence, dog of
Satnam Singh went missing, who blamed the family of Harbhajan Singh
for missing of the said dog. On 02.11.2007 at about 04.00 p.m., both        D
families gathered to discuss the issue regarding the land and missing of
dog. Complainant-Sukhwinder Singh, deceased Harbhajan Singh, his uncle
Satnam Singh, Gurwinder Singh alias Sonu son of Satnam Singh and
other villagers namely Sandeep Singh, Makhan Singh also participated
in the said gathering, which took place on the tubewell situated near       E
village Dasupur. During discussion for settlement, there was exchange
of hot words and the appellants Satnam Singh and Gurwinder Singh
gave fist and kick blows to them. Satnam Singh also raised ‘Lalkara’ to
catch hold Harbhajan Singh to teach him a lesson for partitioning the
land. In the meanwhile, appellant Gurwinder Singh brought an axe from
the room near the tubewell and Satnam Singh held Harbhajan Singh            F
from the arms. Gurwinder Singh gave axe blow to Harbhajan Singh
which hit him on his head and Harbhajan Singh became soiled with blood.
       3. The complainant-Sukhwinder Singh took his father to Civil
Hospital, Kartarpur. After the first aid, Harbhajan Singh was referred
to Joshi Hospital, Jalandhar where he was admitted for further treatment.   G
Even after the incident, since the talk for compromise was going on, no
complaint was lodged about the incident. Since the matter could not be
settled, Sukhwinder Singh lodged the complaint on 07.11.2007, based on
which FIR No.178 of 2007 was registered under Section 307 IPC read
                                                                            H
366             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     with Section 34 IPC. Initial investigation was taken up by the investigating
      officer. Harbhajan Singh succumbed to injuries on 01.12.2007 and the
      case was altered into Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
      Dr. M.B. Bali, Medical Officer (PW-1) conducted the autopsy on the
      dead body of Harbhajan Singh. Further investigation was completed and
      charge sheet was filed against the appellants/accused persons under
B
      Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
            4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined
      Sukhwinder Singh (PW-6), Sandeep Singh (PW-7), Dr. M.B. Bali,
      Medical Officer (PW-1) and other witnesses. The appellants/accused
      were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating
C     evidence and circumstances and the accused denied all of them. On the
      side of the accused, defence witnesses Dr. Mohinderjit Singh (DW-1)
      and Kuldeep Kaur (DW-2) were also examined.
             5. Upon consideration of evidence, the trial court held that by the
      evidence of Sukhwinder Singh (PW-6) and Sandeep Singh (PW-7), the
D     prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
      doubt. The trial court rejected the defence version that Mithu, servant of
      the accused, caused injuries to deceased Harbhajan Singh as unbelievable.
      On such findings, the trial court convicted the appellants/accused
      Gurwinder Singh under Section 302 IPC and Satnam Singh under Section
E     302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life
      imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. Being aggrieved,
      the appellants preferred appeal before the High Court and the High
      Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the
      appellants by the trial court. Hence, this appeal.

F            6. Assailing the verdict of the conviction, learned counsel for the
      appellants submitted that since there was a delay of five days in lodging
      the First Information Report, serious doubts arise as to the prosecution
      case. It was contended that the appellants/accused also sustained injuries
      for which the prosecution has offered no explanation and that the
      prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. Learned
G     counsel for the appellants inter alia contended that even if the
      accusations of the prosecution are accepted in toto, offence under Section
      302 IPC is not made out in view of the circumstances emerging from
      the evidence as the attack was in a sudden quarrel when parties have
      assembled for settling the land dispute.
H
  GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                 367
           AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

       7. In reply, learned counsel for the State submitted that considering     A
the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the nature of head injuries
inflicted on the deceased, the trial court was justified in recording the
conviction under Section 302 IPC and the High Court has rightly dismissed
the appeal.
       8. Evidence of eye witnesses Sukhwinder Singh (PW-6) and                  B
Sandeep Singh (PW-7) were corroborated by the medical evidence.
Prosecution has established that accused were responsible for causing
death of Harbhajan Singh. In the same incident, appellant Satnam Singh
also sustained injuries. On the same day i.e. 02.11.2007 at 04.45 p.m.,
Dr. Mohinderjit Singh (DW-1), Medical Officer examined accused
Satnam Singh and noted the following injuries on the person of Satnam            C
Singh:-
       1. An incised wound 6.0 cm × 0.5 cm on the frontal region;
       2. An incised wound 5.5 cm × 0.5 cm on the left frontal region.
         The patient was discharged after treatment.                             D
      On the same day, Dr. Mohinderjit Singh (DW-1) also examined
accused Gurwinder Singh and noted the following injuries on the person
of Gurwinder Singh:-
       1. An incised wound 3.0 cm × 0.5 cm right temporal parietal region;
                                                                                 E
       2. Abrasion right side frontal region 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm;
       3. Lacerated wound forearm 3.0 cm × 0.5 cm.
       9. Contention of the appellants is that prosecution has not explained
the injuries on the person of the accused and only the complainant party
attacked the accused and the complainant party are the aggressors. In            F
his statement, Sukhwinder Singh has stated that he attacked on the head
of Satnam Singh and caused injury to him. Arguments advanced on
behalf of the appellants is that the complainant party were the aggressors
and that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the persons of
the accused and therefore, the case of prosecution should be disbelieved.
                                                                                 G
        10. It cannot be held as an invariable proposition that as soon as
the accused received the injuries in the same transaction, the complainant
party were the aggressors - it cannot be held as a rule that the prosecution
is obliged to explain the injuries and on failure of the same, the prosecution

                                                                                 H
368             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A     case should be disbelieved. It is well settled that before placing the
      burden on the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the
      accused, two conditions are to be satisfied:- (i) the injuries were sustained
      by the accused in the same transaction; and (ii) the injuries sustained by
      the accused are serious in nature.
B           11. This Court considered the effect of non-explanation of injuries
      sustained by the accused person in Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore
      Kubersing Chamansing and others (2001) 6 SCC 145 and held as
      under:-
            “17. The first question which arises for consideration is what is
C           the effect of non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused
            persons. In Rajender Singh v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 298,
            Ram Sunder Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) 7 SCC 365 and
            Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190, all three-Judge
            Bench decisions, the view taken consistently is that it cannot be
            held as a matter of law or invariably a rule that whenever the
D           accused sustained an injury in the same occurrence, the
            prosecution is obliged to explain the injury and on the failure of
            the prosecution to do so the prosecution case should be disbelieved.
            Before non-explanation of the injuries on the persons of the
            accused persons by the prosecution witnesses may affect the
E           prosecution case, the court has to be satisfied of the existence of
            two conditions: (i) that the injury on the person of the accused
            was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been
            caused at the time of the occurrence in question. Non-explanation
            of injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence consists
            of interested or partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a
F           version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution.
            Where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where
            the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood the mere fact
            that the injuries on the side of the accused persons are not
            explained by the prosecution cannot by itself be a sole basis to
G           reject the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and consequently
            the whole of the prosecution case.” (underlining added)
             12. In the present case, the incident had taken place near the
      tubewell where both the parties assembled to settle the land dispute.
      When there was exchange of words, there was a scuffle between both
H     the parties. In the same transaction where Harbhajan Singh was attacked,
  GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                               369
           AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

the accused party also sustained injuries. Apart from the stray, the           A
statement made by the complainant-Sukhwinder Singh in the FIR, the
prosecution has not offered any explanation for the injuries sustained by
the accused. Since both the accused sustained injuries in the incident,
non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused assumes
significance. Having regard to the injuries sustained by the accused, the
                                                                               B
trial court and the High Court ought to have made an effort in searching
out genesis of the occurrence.
       13. From the evidence, it is clear that both families have assembled
and they were talking near the tubewell to resolve the land dispute.
There was no provocation from either side. In his evidence, Sukhwinder
Singh (PW-6) has clearly stated that there was exchange of words which         C
resulted in scuffle between both the parties. It has come from the
evidence of Dr. Mohinderjit Singh (DW-1) that Harbhajan Singh was
drunk at the time of the incident. While examining Harbhajan Singh at
the time of his admission in the hospital, Dr. Moninderjit Singh (DW-1)
observed that “there was alcoholic smell present in the breath of the          D
patient”. It is in this circumstance, appellant Gurwinder Singh had gone
inside the room adjacent to the tubewell and brought an axe and hit on
the head of deceased Harbhajan Singh. As pointed out earlier, accused
also sustained injuries in the same incident.
       14. There is no clear evidence as to who started the attack. Both       E
the parties were unarmed. When there was exchange of words between
both the parties, accused Gurwinder Singh went inside the room and
brought an axe and caused head injuries to Harbhajan Singh. From the
post-mortem certificate (Ex.PA), it is seen that deceased Harbhajan
Singh sustained head injuries with multiple fractures, right fronto temporal
and temporo parietal region in the right fronto temporo parietal region of     F
the brain, haemorrhagic contusions in bilateral temporal region and right
parietal region. However, deceased Harbhajan Singh survived for about
one month and he succumbed to injuries on 01.12.2007. Though accused
Gurwinder Singh used the axe which is a formidable weapon, but
Harbhajan Singh survived for about one month. The appellants therefore         G
cannot be said to have taken undue advantage of the same. There was
also a delay of five days in lodging the FIR; the reason being, talks were
still going on for settling the matter. Considering the totality of the
circumstances, in our view, the act of the accused would fall under
“Exception 4” to Section 300 IPC.
                                                                               H
370            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A            15. For bringing in operation of “Exception 4” to Section 300
      IPC, it has to be established that the act was committed without
      premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden
      quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having
      acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
B            16. Considering the scope of “Exception 4” to Section 300 IPC,
      in Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, (2004) 11 SCC 395, it was held
      as under:-
            “8. The fourth exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in
            a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of prosecution
C           not covered by the first exception, after which its place would
            have been more appropriate. The exception is founded upon the
            same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But,
            while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-
            control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion
            which clouds men’s sober reason and urges them to deeds which
D           they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4
            as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence
            of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which
            notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some
            provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way
E           the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of
            both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A
            “sudden fight” implies mutual provocation and blows on each side.
            The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral
            provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed
            on one side. For if it were so, the exception more appropriately
F           applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation
            or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which
            both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of
            them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own
            conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is
G           then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to
            apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The
            help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused: (a) without
            premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender’s
            having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
            manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed.
H
  GURWINDER SINGH @ SONU ETC. v. STATE OF PUNJAB                                371
           AND ANR. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

      To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned          A
      in it must be found. It is to be noted that the “fight” occurring in
      Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It takes two
      to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no
      time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties
      have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal
                                                                                B
      altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and
      more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible
      to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a
      sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is
      sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of
      each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to    C
      show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no
      premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not
      taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
      The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provision means
      “unfair advantage”.” (underlining added)
                                                                                D
       17. The question falling for consideration is the nature of the
offence whether it would fall under Section 304 Part-I IPC or Part-II
IPC. The third clause of Section 300 IPC consists of two parts. Under
the first part, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict the
injury that is present and under the second part, it must be proved that
the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.      E
As discussed earlier, deceased Harbhajan Singh was attacked with axe
on the head and he sustained multiple fractures, right fronto temporal
and temporo parietal region infarct in the right fronto temporo parietal
region of the brain, haemorrhagic contusions in bilateral temporal region
and right parietal region. The head injury caused to Harbhajan Singh            F
was sufficient in the ordinary course of the nature to cause death. The
accused intended to inflict that injury on Harbhajan Singh which is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In Nankaunoo
v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2016) 3 SCC 317, it was held as under:-
      “12. The emphasis in clause three of Section 300 IPC is on the            G
      sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause
      death. The sufficiency is the high probability of death in the ordinary
      course of nature. When the sufficiency exists and death follows,
      causing of such injury is intended and causing of such offence is
      murder. For ascertaining the sufficiency of the injury, sometimes
                                                                                H
372                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 4 S.C.R.


A            the nature of the weapon used, sometimes the part of the body on
             which the injury is caused and sometimes both are relevant.
             Depending on the nature of weapon used and situs of the injury, in
             some cases, the sufficiency of injury to cause death in the ordinary
             course of nature must be proved and cannot be inferred from the
             fact that death has, in fact, taken place.”
B
             18. Keeping in view the above principle, when we examine the
      facts of the present case, the deceased sustained head injuries with
      multiple fractures, right fronto temporal and temporo parietal region infarct
      in the right fronto temporo parietal region of the brain, haemorrhagic
      contusions in bilateral temporal region and right parietal region. The
C     weapon used in the manner in which the injury was inflicted clearly
      establish that the appellants intended to cause the injury which is sufficient
      in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Having regard to the
      facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the conviction
      of the appellants under Section 302 IPC to be modified as conviction
D     under Section 304 Part-I IPC.
             19. In the result, the conviction of the appellants under Section
      302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is modified as conviction under Section
      304 Part-I IPC and the appellants are sentenced to undergo imprisonment
      for seven years and the appeals are partly allowed. Appellant Gurwinder
E     Singh is said to have undergone imprisonment for more than ten years,
      he is ordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in
      any other case. Appellant Satnam Singh is directed to surrender to
      serve the remaining period of sentence, failing which, he shall be taken
      into custody.

F
      Nidhi Jain                                               Appeals partly allowed.




G




H