Holding

The conviction is altered from murder (s.302) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (s.304 Part I).

Summary

Ramesh Laxman Pardeshi and others were convicted of murder (s.302 IPC) for stabbing Sheroo Lala after a heated verbal exchange near Badshah's hand‑cart. The appellant argued that the stabbing was done in the heat of passion, provoked by vulgar words, without pre‑meditation or intention to cause death, and that the appropriate charge should be culpable homicide not amounting to murder (s.304 Part I) or even private defence. The trial and High Courts rejected the private‑defence claim but accepted that a hot exchange and provocation occurred, concluding that the appellant inflicted a single fatal blow without intent to kill. The Supreme Court held that the evidence showed intention only to cause bodily injury likely to cause death, not a specific intent to cause death, and therefore altered the conviction to s.304 Part I, ordering release as the appellant had already served more than seven years of the sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the stabbing constitutes murder under s.302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304 Part I.
Whether provocation and heat of passion negate the requisite intention for murder.
Whether the accused can successfully claim right of private defence.
Whether the suppression of the exact words spoken affects the inference of provocation.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304 Part I, s. 304 Part II

Subjects

murderculpable homicideprovocationheat of passionprivate defenceintentsentencinglife imprisonmentreduction of conviction

Judgment

RAMESH LAXMAN PARDESHI A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
''f
APRIL 10, 1987

[V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] B

Indian Penal Code, 1860-S. 312 or 304 Part I-Evidence indi-
I
cated exchange of hot words-Prosecution Witnesses deliberately
·--\ suppressed the exact words used-Whether inference could be drawn
... ,c..._ . that if those words were given out, it would have damaged the prosecu-
tion case-Whether the words used by the deceased and his friends
caused provocation to accused-No premeditation-Injury caused at
c
spur of moment and in heat of passion proved fatal-Whether intention
to cause death can be attributed-Whether the case would fall within the
·~ purview ofs. 302 or 304 Part I.

The appellant alongwith others was prosecuted for causing the D
death of Sheroo Lala. It was alleged that during the exchange of hot
words between the party of the deceased and the party of the appellant,
the appellant inflicted a stab wound in the stomach of Sheroo with a
Rampuri knife as a result of which he died. On trial the appellant was
convicted for an offence under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
-* sentenced to imprisonment for life and on appeal his conviction and E

-
sentence was maintained.

In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was
contended; ( 1) that Maruti one of the accused persons had a contused
lacerated wound on the head on the right occipital parietal region and
....., the defence version was that when exchange started between Sheroo and F
) Maruti, first Maruti was assaulted and then in exchange, one another
accused took a knife and gave a blow to the deceased and thus plea of
the accused was that this injury was inflicted on Sheroo in the exercise
of right of private defence; and (2) that both the Courts below came to
the conclusion that as soon as Sheroo and his party arrived near the
hand-cart of Badshah, there was a hot exchange between the two sides. G
The witnesses examined by the prosecution have not clearly stated what
words were uttered and the trial court felt that the language was
obscene and probably the witnesses did not like t.o mention whereas the
High Court felt that the witnesses were not in a position to mention the
exact words. However, both the Courts did reach a conclusion that
there was a hot exchange between the two groups and, therefore, in H

901
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.C.R.

A such a situation it could not be doubted that the party of the accused
was provocated and on such grave and sudden provocation at the heat
y'
of the moment, the appellant who was carrying a knife took it out and
inflicted only one blow and did not even attempt a second blow and the
fmdings of the both the Courts is that this happened at the spur of the
moment without pre-meditation and in the heat of the passion and,
B therefore, at best the appellant could be convicted for an offence u~der
s. 304 Part II because in these circumstances no intention of causing
death could be attributed to the appellant and since he has already
served for more than 7 years of sentence, no useful purpose would be
served by sending him to serve a short period of sentence.

C On behalf of the respondent-State, it was contended that there
was some previous trouble between the parties which furnish some
motive and this opportunity was taken to seek vengeance.

Allowing the Appeal,

D HELD: 1. The conviction of the appellant is altered from one
under s. 302 to s. 304 Part I I.P.C. and since the appellant has already
served ont more than 7 years, he is sentenced to sentence already
undergone. [909C]

2. The plea of right of private defence taken by the accused
E persons including the appellant has not been accepted by the Courts
below. Both the Courts below have rejected the story that it was not the
appellant but another accused who wiped out a knife and inflicted the
injury on Sheroo and that first injury .was caused on Marnti. There is
no evidence to indicate that there was any material sufficient to come to
the conclusion that it was Maruti who was assaulted first. On the con-
F trary the consistent evidence indicated that on arrival of Sheroo it was
Marnti who ·started the verbal exchange and in view of this evidence,
the submission that the injury was inflicated on Sheroo in the exercise of
right of private defence cannot be accepted. [906H; 907 A-B]

3. The Trial Court was right in concluding that "something pro-
G vocative seems to have happened". It is apparent that the prosecution
witnesses did not say or give out what words were spoken. The only
inference could be that if those words were given out, it would have
damaged the prosecution case. [908B-C)

4. On the arrival of the complainants' party some hot exchange
H began. Words were spoken, the witnesses have categorically stated that
R.L. PARDESHI v. MAHARASHTRA [OZA, J.l 903

they were speaking loudly and still prosecution witnesses have chosen to
give excuse for not speaking out words by saying that they could not A
hear those words and this clearly goes to show that the words used by
the deceased and his friends were such which caused provocation. Both
the Courts came to the conclusion that there was no pre-meditation. It
was at the spur of the moment and in the heat of passion and it is also
not disputed that only one blow was inflicted by the present appellant B
and the injury ultimately caused proved to be fatal. [908C-E]

5. The story of some earlier trouble and the motive suggested by
~ - the prosecution has not been accepted by both the Courts below and it is
also clear that there was not a pre-arranged plan. Admittedly it was by
chance that the party of Sheroo also chose to go to the same spot i.e.
hand-cart of Badshah at that odd hour at night where the appellant and c
his friends had already reached. It is not as if seeing the deceased
Sheroo and his friends that the appellant and his friends reached. On
the contrary, Sheroo and his friends arrived later. In this view of the
matter, both the Courts were right in comi"~ to the conclusion that hot
exchange of filthy language resulted in some kiPd of provocation in the D
heat of passion without premeditation this injury was inflicted and in
the circumstances it could not be held that it was inflicted with an
intention to cause death. The only intention which could be attributed
to the appellant in the circumstances of this case could be to cause such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Consequently, the appellant could

. only be convicted for an offence under s. 304 Part I. [908G-H; 909A-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
E

No. 8 of 1978.

From the Judgment and Order dated the 17.10.1977 of the
Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1007 of 1974. F

Rajinder Singh and A.K. Srivastava for the Appellant.

M.N. Shroff for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G

OZA, J. This appeal has been filed after obtaining leave from
this Court against the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 302 and
sentence of imprisonment for life recorded by Additional Sessions
Judge Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 204173 and maintained on
appeal by High Court of Bombay by its judgment dated 17th Oct. H
1977.
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.C.R.

A The prosecution case at the trial was that on the midnight
intervening between 25th/26th July, 1972 the appellant alongwith
others went to traffic island near Bandra, situated on Linking Road y
where Badshah Umarbax was doing the business of vending eatables
from his hand cart kept in that island. The eatables included heavy
non-vegetarian items. Badshah, P. W. 4 was assisted in his trade by his
B brother-in-law Sadatali, P.W. 5 and some other servants. It is alleged
that the appellant alongwith his friends had reached there to celebrate
the victory of Carom game of the Carom Club run by accused No. 1 )._
and on reaching near the cart accused Nos. 1 and 4 placed order for
meat and other preparations.

As the dishes were getting ready the deceased Sheroo Lala came
__ _;,).
-
c there, driving his red Fiat Car MRT 566. By his side was his relation
Ahmedkhan, who, though cited as a witness, was not examined at the
).-
trial, as it was reported that he was not available. In the back seat sat
Chutkhan, P.W. 2 and Alikhan, P.W. 3. It appears that Chutkan and
Kala Topi met in a hotel in Khar and while they were conversing,
D Sheroo Lala came there together with Alikhan in the Car from ~
Santacruz side. After gossipping for sometime Sheroo Lala proposed
to go to Badshah's hand cart on Linking Road, for taking food. That is
how all of them arrived near the Badshah's hand cart where the appel-
lant and his friends had reached earlier. This car went and stopped '
very near the hand cart. The other car& which brought the appellant
*
E and his friends earlier were parked there. It was at 11.45 p.m. and
there were two petromax lights burning on the hand cart. There were
also some street lights. It is alleged that Sheroo Lala got down from his
..
car and proceeded for placing the order and just as he did so he was
stopped by Maruti, one of the accused persons who addressed him in a _,
)

F
loud tone. This was followed by heated exchange of words and sud-
denly the present appellant-accused No. 1 in the courts below who was -
behind Maruti came forward with an open Rampuri knife and inflicted
a stab wound in the stomach of Sheroo. The other accused also
'
assaulted Sheroo Lala with a stick on the head. The other persons who
were tried, it is alleged were also there. It is alleged that in the
meantime Chutkhan, Kala Topi and Ahmedkhan had come near the
G spot where Sheroo was stabbed and Sheroo keeping his hand on the
in jury walk~d towards the north and ultimately fell down in a pool of
blood collected on the spot. Chutkan, Kala Topi and Ahmedkhan, it is ~--
alleged, got down from the car probably to meet the assailants but just
then Maruti who was accused No. 3 in the courts below, picked up a
Sun from Badshah's hand cart and aimed a blow at Chutkan but
H Chutkan grappled with it and got hurt near the thumb on the palm of
R.L. PARDESHI v. MAHARASHTRA [OZA, J.l 905

his right hand. Another blow was aimed by Maruti, but it was warded
A
of by Chutkhan and it is alleged that at that time accused No. 4 gave a
blow with a bamboo on the right hand of Chutkhan and accused No. 7
gave a blow on Ahmedkhan with an iron bar. Ahmedkhan fell down
and sometime later he went away himself. It is alleged that when this
was happening, Kala Topi removed a bamboo, from Badshah's hand-
cart and started flourishing it in defence. The other also were doing B
something to defend themselves. According to the prosecution in this
,J, exchange some in juries were inflicted but so far as the present appeal
\ is concerned, we are not concerned with it <'"' we are concerned with
• M-- .. only the appellant Ramesh Laxman Pardeshi.

Chutkhan and Kala Topi, in the meantime, managed to board a
taxi and went to K.E.M. Hospital for treatment. They reached the
c
Hospital at 1.50 A.M. At about 1.20 A.M. accused No. 3, who was
having a bleeding injury on the head, visited the Bandra Police Station
alongwith accused No. 4 to lodge a complaint against Sheroo and his
companions. S.I Patil, P.W. 17, who was on duty at the Bandra Police
Station, sent Maruti to Podar Hospital alongwith form for medical D
examination in the car of Subhash, another accused person.

Dr. Parandekar, P.W. 15 who was attached to K.E.M. Hospital
at the relevant time as Casualty Medical Officer examined Kala Topi
and Chutkhan whereas Dr. Muzavar, P.W. 13 examined Maruti at
Podar Hospital. In the meanwhile Police Constable Sawant, P.W. 10, E
who was on patrol duty that night came across the injured Sheroo on
the street north of the traffic island, mortally wounded. The constable
therefore arranged for his removal to K.E.M. Hospital where he
reached at about 2.20 A.M. and informed at 2.45 S.I. Patil of Bandra
J Police Station about this. Dr. Parandekar examined Sheroo Lala at
j 2.20 A.M. as an unknown person. His general condition was poor and F
found an incised injury on his person. There was another C.L. W. on
the left frontal region. He was admitted in the ward and one Dr.
Aggarwal, P.W. 9 examined him at 2.25 A.M. and found him dead.

S.I. Patil received a telephone call at 2.45 A.M. sent by the
police Constable Sawant, P.W. 10. He went to the Hospital imme- G
diately jllld made enquiries but could not ascertain the name of
Sheroo. He learnt that two pathans meaning thereby Chutkhan and
Kala Topi were also in the Hospital. He contacted them and ques-
tioned them. They were brought down and they identified Sheroo. The
statements which the Sub-Inspector Patil recorded of Chutkhan is pro-
duced in the case F.I.R. Ex. 6. After investigation, a charge-sheet was H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.C.R.

A filed and on t~fal the present appellant was convicted for an offence
under Sec. 302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and on appeal
his conviction and sentence has been maintained, and it is because of
y ·
this that the present appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant made two submis-
B sions:) i) that Maruti one of the accused persons had a contused
lacerated wound on the head on the right occipital parietal region. The
defence version was that when exchange started between Sheroo and
Maruti, it was first that Maruti was assaulted and then in the exchange,
one another accused took out a knife and gave a blow to the deceased
. and thus plea of the accused was that this injury was inflicted on
C Sheroo in the exercise of right of private defence. Alternatively it was
submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that both
the courts, the Sessions Court and the High Court came to the conclu-
sion that as soon as Sheroo and his party arrived near the hand-cart of
Badshah, there was a hot exchange between the two sides. The witnes-
ses examined by the prosecution have not clearly stated what words
D were uttered and it was pointed out by learned counsel by reference to
the Sessions Court's judgment that the learned Judge felt that the
language was obscene and probably the witnesses did not like to men-
tion whereas the High Court felt that the wtitnesses were not in a
position to mention the exact words but it was contended that both the
courts did reach a conclusion that there was a hot exchange between
E the two groups. It was contended therefore in such a situation it could
not be doubted that the party of the accused was provoked and on such
grave and sudden provocation at the heat of the mement, this appel-
lant who was carrying a knife took it out and inflicted only one blow. It
was contended that he did not even attempt a second blow and the i_
finding of both the courts is that this happened at the spur of the -.~
F moment without pre-meditation and in the heat of passion. In these
circumstances it was contended that at best the appellant could be
convicted for an offence under Sec. 304 Part II. He has served more
than 7 years of sentence already and being an incident of 1972, no
useful purpose would be served by sending this appellant to serve a
short period of sentence.
G
As regards the first question about right of private defence, the
stand taken by the accused persons including the present appellant has
not been accepted by the courts below. An attempt was made to sug-
gest that it was not the present appellant but another accused who
wiped out a knife and inflicted the injury on Sheroo and in that context
H it was also suggested that first injury was caused on Meruti but both
R.L. PARDESHI v. MAHARASHTRA [OZA, J.l 907

the courts below rejected that story and the learned counsel could not A
~ refer to any particular part of the evidence to indicate that there was
any material sufficient to come to the conclusion that it was Maruti
who was assaulted first. On the contrary the consistent evidence indi-
cated that on arrival of Sheroo it was Maruti who started the verbal
exchange and in view of this evidence, in our opinion, the first submis-
sion made by the learned counsel could not be accepted. B
~-
- - As regards the second contention the High Court in its judgment
stated "no doubt whatsoever that the words must have been kept back
by these witnesses because they were too vulgar and too convincing to
be uttered by the witnesses in court."

It was also contended that if it were the accused persons who
c
~...(_
uttered vulgar words which might have caused insult or annoyance or
provocation to the witnesses they would not have hesitated in saying
what was said to them by the accused persons but the witnesses chose
not to say the exact words as it was their party itself which started this
vulgar verbal talk which provoked the accused-appellant. The learned D
Judges of the High Court while examining this contention observed
"when they did not uttar these words, there was every liklihood of
Sheroo having uttered these words to provoke the accused. Even
.o\· assuming that Sheroo had provoked by using such words accused No. 1
had no business to thrust a Rampuri knife inside the stomach of
Sheroo in exchange of words." Similarly learned Sessions Judge ulti- E
mately held "but suddenly in the heat of passion, accused No. 1 may
have thought of taking out in his hand and inflicted the injury" and
therefore learned Judge found that other accused persons could not be
iJ. imputed with the intention of causing death. As regards the words
j uttered during the exchange the learned Judge observed after referring
to the relevant portions of evidence of witnesses" one cannot but feel F
that the witnesses are deliberately not speaking of it. Something pro-
vocative seems to have happened but they want to keep it away from
the court, on that ground that evidence. given by these witnesses will
have to be examined with suspicion and caution."

It is therefore clear that both the courts the trial court and the G
~ High Court were of the view that the words spoken in the hot exchange
between the two groups have been suppressed by the prosecution
witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge felt that the words were such
which might have caused provocation and it is only because of this that
the prosecution witnesses are trying to keep back these words.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that if the provocative H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A words were used by the accused persons, the prosecution witnesses
may not have kept it back but the only reason for the prosecution y
witnesses not to say what were the words spoken, appears to be what
the learned Sessions Judge felt when he observed what has been
quoted above. It appears that this contention of the learned counsel
*
appears to be correct. The learned Judge was right in reaching this
ff
B conclusion as it is apparent that the prosecution witnesses did not say
or gave out what words were spoken, the only inference could be that }-- ..
if those words were given out, it would have damaged the prosecution
case. The learned Sessions Judge felt that "something provocative _y.
seems to have happened." -·
We are therefore left with no option but to look to the incident
c that on the arrival of the complainants' party some hot exchange
began. Words were spoken, the witnesses have categorically stated
that they were speaking loudly and still prosecution witnesses have
chosen to give excuse for not speaking out the words by saying that
they could not hear those words and this clearly goes to show that the
D words used by the deceased and his friends were such which caused
provocation. Both the courts came to the conclusion that there was no
pre-meditation. It was at the spur of the moment and in the heat of
passion and it is also not disputed that only one blow was inflicted by
the present appellant and the injury ultimately caused proved to be
fatal. Learned counsel referred to series of decisions of this Court and
E contended that in such a situation when under provocation without
pre-meditation and in the heat of passion, on the spur of moment one
in jury is inflicted, it could not be said that the accused had the inten-
tion of causing death and this is what has been propounded in number . ,
of decisions of this Court.

F Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that
there was some previous trouble between the parties and that furnish
some motive and on that basis an attempt was made to contend that
this opportunity was taken to seek vengeance. This story of some
earlier irouble and the motive suggested by the prosecution has not
been accepted by both the courts below and it is also clear that there
G was not a pre-arranged plan. Admittedly it was by chance that the
party of Sheroo also chose to go to the same spot i.e. hand-cart of
Badshah at that odd hour at night where the appellant and his friends
had already reached. It is not as if seeing the deceased Sheroo and his
friends that the appellant and his friends reached. On the contrary
Sheroo and his friends arrived later. In this view of the matter both the
h courts were right in coming to the conclusion that hot exchange of
R.L. PARDESHI v. MAHARASHTRA [OZA, J.] 909

filthy language resulted in some kind of provocation and in the heat of A
passion without pre-meditation this injury was inflicted and in the
circumstances it could not be held that it was inflicted with an intention
to cause death. The only intention which could be attributed to the
appellant in the circumstances of this case could be to. cause such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Consequently the appellant
could only be convicted for an offence under Sec. 304 Part I but as the B
appellant has already served out more than 7 years, in our opinion, the

- --
sentence already undergone will meet the ends of justice. The appeal
is therefore allowed, the conviction of the appellant is altered from
one under sec. 302 to Sec. 304 Part I and sentenced to sentence already
undergone. If the appellant is in custody, he shall be set at liberty
forthwith. c
A.P.J. Appeal allowed.

'

J