Holding

The conviction is modified to Section 304 Part II IPC as the appellant caused the death without intention, not to Section 302 IPC.

Summary

The appellant Surendra Singh was prosecuted for the death of Ram Singh after a dispute over cattle damage to agricultural fields. The prosecution alleged that after a heated exchange and scuffle, the appellant’s elder brother Rajendra Singh urged him to kill Ram Singh, leading the appellant to fire a single shot that struck the victim. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 34 IPC (common intention); the High Court upheld the murder conviction. On limited review, the Supreme Court examined whether the appellant possessed the intention to cause death, noting the acquittal of the other accused and the lack of reliable eyewitness testimony establishing a common intent. Finding no proof of intention, the Court held the offence fell under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and modified the conviction, sentencing the appellant to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The appeal was partly allowed, altering the conviction and sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant had the intention to cause the death of the deceased, thereby attracting Section 302 IPC or whether the offence should be classified under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Whether the prosecution established a common intention under Section 34 IPC among the accused.
Whether the conviction could be altered on the limited notice issued by the Supreme Court.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302, s. 304(Part II), s. 34, s. 504, s. 506

Subjects

murderculpable homicide not amounting to murderintentioncommon intentionIPCcriminal lawconviction alterationlimited notice

Judgment

A SURENDRA SINGH@ BITTU ...
v.
STATEOFUTTARANCHAL

APRIL 28, 2006

B [S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ .]

Penal Code, 1860:

s. 304( Part ll)-Absence of intention to cause death-During exchange
C of hot words and scufjle, a single gun shot causing death of victim-Three
accused prosecuted u/s 302134 /PC-Trial court acquitting one of them and
convicting two under s.304134-High Court acquitting another giving him
benefit of doubt and convicting appellant u/s. 302 simplicitor-Held, in view
of acquittal of other two accused, genesis of occurrence cannot be said to
D have been proved-Appellant did not act on his own- He is said to have
acted on impulse and that too upon being instigated by his brother--
Appellant cannot be said to have intention to kill the deceased-Conviction
uls 302 altered to one u/s 304 (part II) with sentence of 7 years RI.

Appellant, his elder brother and another person were prosecuted for
E offences inter alia, punishable under s. 302/34 IPC. The appellant and PW-
1 had adjoining agricultural lands. Prosecution case was that cattle belonging
to appellant used to enter agricultural fields of PW-I. On the date of
occurrence also cattle of appellant damaged crops of PW-I whereupon his
son made protests. This led to hot exchanges and a scuffle. Upon exhortation
F given by his elder brother the appellant was said to have fired a shot which
hit the son of PW-I on the left flank of the abdomen. PW-I and two other co-
villagers namely PW-2 and one 'K' were said to have witnessed the
occurrence. However, 'K' was not examined by the prosecution. The trial court
convicted the appellant and his elder brother inter alia, under s.302/34 IPC.
On appeal, the High Court acquitted the elder brother of appellant. However,
G the appellant was convicted inter alia, under s.302 IPC simplicitor.

In the present appeal, the Court issued limited notice, namely, as to
whether the judgment of conviction under s.302 IPC should be altered to one
under s.304 IPC. It was contended for the accused-appellant that it was not a
case where the accused could be said to have any intention to cause death of
H 4~
SURENDRA SINGH@BITTU v. STA TE OF UTTARANCHAL 491
the deceased. A
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court

HELD: 1.1. In view of the acquittal of the other two accused, the genesis
of the occurrence cannot be said to have been proved. The appellant, according
to the prosecution case itself, did not act on his own. He is said to have acted B
on impulse and that too upon being instigated by his brother. From the evidence
of PW-I and PW-2, it is evident that not only there had been hot exchange of
words, but also a scuffle. PW-I, the father of the deceased, was not at the spot

- and therefore, he did not witness the occurrence. The trial judge did not fully
rely upon the evidence of PW-2. Thus, there was no witness who can be said
to have proved the actual genesis of the occurrence. The High Court did not
believe the exhortation aspect and acquitted the brother of the appellant giving
him benefit of doubt. The parties have their own agricultural lands adjoining
C

each other. The prosecution case is that the cattle belonging to the appellant
had damaged the standing crops of the deceased, but the Investigating Officer
did not find any evidence in this behalf. The appellant was not apprehended at D
the spot. In a situation of this nature, it cannot be said that the appellant had
an intention to kill the deceased. [494-D-H; 495-A-C)

Jalaram v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 9 SCALE 505, referred to.

1.2. The conviction of the appellant is modified as falling under Fourth E
Exception to s.300 IPC as he has caused the death of the deceased without
having any intention therefor. The appellant is found guilty of commission of
an offence under s.304 (Part II) of the IPC. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case, appellant is sentenced to undergo sentence of seven
years' R.I. and also pay a fine of Rs. 5000- which if realised may be paid to
· PW-1. [496-A-C) F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 50 I of
2006.

From the Judgment and final Order dated 15.9.2005 of the Uttaranchal
High Court at Nainital, in Criminal Appeal No. 148/2002. ' G
Venkateswara Rao Anumolu for the Appellant.

Avatar Singh Rawat and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A S. B. SINHA, J. Leave granted ..
The appellant is before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a
judgment and order dated 15.9.2005 passed by the High Court ofUttaranchal
in Criminal Appeal No. 148/2002, whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred
by him from a judgment dated 17 .6.2002 of the Fast Track Court, Kashipur
B (Udhamsingh Nagar), convicting him for an offence under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code ('IPC', for short) was dismissed.

Having regard to the fact that a limited notice was issued in the matter,

C
namely, as to whether the judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC
should be altered to one under Section 304 IPC, we need only notice the facts
relevant to that aspect: -
The parties belong to Mohali Jungle of P.S. Bazpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar. They have their own agricultural lands in the said village. The
appellant has his own cattle. The cattle belonging to the Appellant used to
D enter into the agricultural lands of the deceased, Ram Singh, which were
adjoining to the agricultural lands of the accused and were separated by a
bund. Ram Singh made a number of complaints thereabout to the appellant.
On 14.6.200 I, again the cattle allegedly damaged the crops grown in the plot
of the deceased. He made a protest. thereagainst whereupon hot exchanges
of words ensued. There was a scuffle. Rajendra Singh, the elder brother of
E the accused, allegedly, exhorted that the deceased has been creating trouble
and he should be killed, whereupon the appellant is said to have fired a shot
from his gun, which hit him on the left flank of the abdomen.

Indisputably, P.W.1-Madan Singh, the father of the deceased and two
co-villagers - P.W.2-Govind Singh and Kharak Singh witnessed the occurrence.
F It is not in dispute that the gun in question was not recovered. It was further
not in dispute that another witness Kharak Singh, who was also said to be
an eye-witness, had not been examined by the prosecution.

Along with the appellant herein, his brother Rajendra Singh, as also the
G accused No. 3 Trilok Singh were charge-sheeted. The learned Trial Judge
acquitted Trilok Singh of all charges holding, inter alia, that sufficient evidence
was not brought on record to implicate him. The appellant herein and Rajendra
Singh were, however, convicted under Sections 302/34, 504 and 506 of the
IPC. An appeal was preferred thereagainst. By reason of the impugned
judgment, the High Court, however, while acquitting Rajendra Singh of the
H charges levelled against him, maintained the conviction of the appellant
SURENDRASINGH@BITTUv. STATEOFUITARANCHAL[S.B.S!NHA,J.] 493

herein under Section 302 !PC simplicitor, as also under Sections 504 and 506 A
of the !PC. The appellant is, thus, before us.

In this appeal we proceed on the basis that the appellant was responsible
for causing the death of the said Ram Singh. The homicidal nature of death
of Ram Singh is also not in dispute.
B
The principal submission of Mr. M.N. Rao, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant is that it is not a case where the appellant
can be said to have any intention to cause death of the said Ram Singh.

P. W.l, the father of the deceased was not at the spot and, therefore, did
not witness the occurrence. Govind Singh-P.W.2 and Kharak Singh-P.W.3 C
were examined by the prosecution. They allegedly have been passing through
the bund of the said field at about 7.30 p.m. P.W.3 was at a distance from them.
Although, in his examination-in-chief he is said to have stated that Rajendra
Singh asked the appellant to kill him with a fire arm, whereupon the appellant
fired a shot, but in his cross-examination he categorically stated: D
"The name of my real brother is Mohan Singh. Some scuffle with Ram
Singh and accused persons took place on the bund of the field. I had
not heard the sharing of abuses because I was behind."

It is also not in dispute that only one shot was fired. P.W.2-Govind E
Singh had not been relied upon totally by the Trial Judge. Possibly, in view
of his evidence the aforementioned Trilok singh was acquitted. The said
Govind Singh in his examination-in-chief stated that:

"..... Minor scolding took place between Rajendra Singh and Ram Singh.
This scolding took place on the question of damages caused by the F
cattle. Rajendra Singh said to Surendra Singh shoot him with gun, he
harasses us daily. Trilok Singh was shouting from his house, don't let
him alive, kill him. Surendra Singh had shot a fire on Ram Singh."

His evidence has not been found to be reliable by the learned trial
Judge. He noticed: G
" .... Witness Govind Singh PW-2 has stated in his examination in chief
that exchange of abuses took place on the question of entering of
cattle in the field. He stated the fact that exchange of abuse took place
between Ram Singh and Rajendra Singh and on this question no cross
examination of the witness has been made. By which it should be H
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A admitted that there was no such fact of causing damages by the cattle.
Thus there were grudge and enmity between the parties and just due
to that enmity this occurrence has been caused by the accused
persons on the same day in the evening."

The Trial Judge categorically held that Trilok Singh was not present at
B the spot. A site plan was prepared by P.W.4-Rakesh Chandra Thapliyal, the
Investigating Officer of the spot on the basis of identification of the site by
the said Govind Singh and Kharak Singh. According to the said witness, no
damage of crop by the cattle was shown in the site plan. It has further been
noticed by the learned Trial Judge that Govind Singh, even in his statements
C before the Investigating Officer, did not name Trilok Singh.

The High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, also acquitted the brother of
the appellant on whose alleged exhortation only the appellant has said to
have fired the shot opining:

" ....On the other hand we find that in the instant case there was only
D
allegation of instigation attributed to accused Rajendra Singh and he
was not in the picture when the deceased first of all met the accused
Surendra Singh and complained to him about the damage to his crop
by the cattle of the accused. The accused Surendra Singh was at that
time carrying a gun and therefore there was no need for accused
E Rajendra Singh to exhort or instigate his brother accused Surendra
Singh to kill the deceased by wielding the gun. Considering the
evidence of P. W. l and P. W.2 to this effect we are convinced that there
was no meeting of mind of these two accused to commit the offence
with which they were charged and therefore without casting any
reflection on the evidence of these two eye witnesses and only by
F way of abundant caution accused Rajendra Singh should have been
extended benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges leveled with
the aid of section 34 I.P.C."

The question as to whether the appellant had the motive to kill the said
G Ram Singh is required to be considered on the aforementioned backdrop of
events.

In view of the acquittal ofTrilok Singh and Rajendra Singh, the genesis
of the occurrence cannot be said to have been proved. The appellant, according
to the prosecution case itself, did not act on his own. He is said to have acted
H on impulse and that too upon being instigated by his brother. From the
SURENDRA SINGH@ BIITU v. STATE OF UTIARANCHAL [S.B. SINHA, J.] 495
evidence of P.W.I and P.W.2, it is evident that not only there had been hot A
exchange of words, but also a scuffle. The learned Trial Judge did not fully
rely upon the evidence of P.W.2. Thus, there was no witness who can be said
to have proved the actual genesis of the occurrence.

The parties have their own agricultural lands adjoining each other. The
prosecution case is that the cattle belonging to the appellant had damaged B
the standing crops of the deceased, but the Investigating Officer did not find
any evidence in this behalf. Why then there had been hot exchange of words
and a scuffle ensued is not known. Only one shot was fired. The Appellant
was not apprehended at the spot. In a situation of this nature, therefore, we
are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the appellant had an intention C
to kill the deceased.

- In Jalaram v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 9 SCALE 505, this Court, in a
case where there had been a dispute as regard the right of way, held:

"The right of way on the agricultural land belonging to Sonaram D
has not been established. If there was not established right of way
by way of easement or otherwise and ifthere had been an apprehension
in the mind of the accused that there was a threat of trespass in their
land, indisputably they could exercise their right of private defence.
In any event, such an apprehension on the part of the Appellant and
other accused persons cannot be ruled out. E
We have noticed hereinbefore, that the only blow which was
hurled by the Appellant herein was on the forehead of the deceased.
The genesis of the occurrence, appears also not to have been disclosed
by the prosecution. It is not the case of the prosecution that the
appellant herein and other accused persons had been nurturing any F
grudge against the deceased or the informant from before or had any
motive to commit the aforementioned offence. Any motive on the part
of the Appellant and other accused persons for hiding themselves
near the place of occurrence and committing the offence has not been
estahlished. It is, thus, difficult to accept that part of the prosecution G
case."

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the offence, which
is established as against the appellant herein, would fall under Section 304
Part II of the !PC and not under Section 302 !PC.
H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A We, therefore, modify the conviction of the Appellant as falling under
Fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC being of the opinion that the appellant
has caused the death of the deceased without having any intention therefor.
The appellant is, therefore, found guilty of commission of an office under
Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

B We are, further, of the opinion that keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of this case, interests of justice would be subserved if the
appellant is sentenced to undergo sentence of seven years' Rigorous
Imprisonment and also pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment whereof,
to undergo further six months' Simple Imprisonment. We direct that the fine
C of Rs.5000/-, if realized, may be paid to P.W.1-Madan Singh.

The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent.

RP. Appeal partly allowed. -