Death Due to Grave, Sudden

Provocation Not Cruel Act of Murder:

SC
Death due to "grave and sudden provocation" could
not be termed as a "cruel act" of murder, the
Supreme Court has said while reducing the life term
of a man to 10-year-jail term in a homicidal case.

New Delhi: Death due to "grave and sudden provocation" could not
be termed as a "cruel act" of murder, the Supreme Court has said
while reducing the life term of a man to 10-year-jail term in a
homicidal case.
A bench comprising justices A K Sikri and R K Agrawal granted the
relief to Punjab resident Surain Singh who had filed an appeal
against a 2008 judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana
which had confirmed a 1998 trial court verdict awarding life
imprisonment to him.
"It cannot be said that the accused had any
intention of causing the death of the deceased when
he committed the act in question. The incident took
place out of grave and sudden provocation and
hence the accused is entitled to the benefit of
Section 300 (murder) exception 4 (sudden fight) of
the Indian Penal Code.
"Thus, in entirety, considering the factual scenario of the case on
hand, the legal evidence on record and in the background of legal
principles laid down by this court in the cases referred to supra, the
inevitable conclusion is that the act of the accused was not a cruel
act and the accused did not take undue advantage of the
deceased," the court said. It noted that "the scuffle took place in the
heat of passion" and the accused was entitled to benefit of
exception 4 under Section 300 IPC.
It said that accused's appropriate conviction would be under
Section 304 part II (punishment for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder) of IPC, instead of section 302 (punishment
for murder) IPC.
"Hence, the sentence of imprisonment for 10 years would meet the
ends of justice," the court said.
The bench reached to the conclusion after noting that there was
bitter hostility between the warring factions to which the accused
and the deceased belonged and that the attack was not
premeditated and preplanned.
"Criminal litigation was going on between these factions. It is also
proved from the material on record that the attack was not
premeditated and preplanned. Both the parties were present in the
court of executive magistrate, Faridkot at the relevant time with
regard to the proceedings under Section 107/151 of IPC (in a
separate case). When the accused objected the presence of a
member of the opposite side, the scuffle started between the parties
which resulted into death of two persons.
"The conduct of the appellant-accused that he at once took out his
Kirpan and started giving blows to the opposite party proves that
the attack was not premeditated and it was because of the spur of
the moment and without any intention to cause death. The occasion
for sudden fight must not only be sudden but the party assaulted
must be on an equal footing in point of defence, at least at the
onset," it said.
The court also cited the deposition of the doctor
who had conducted autopsy of the deceased where
he had stated that the stab wounds implied that in
the spur of the moment, the accused inflicted
injuries using 'Kirpan' though not on the vital
organs of the body of the deceased but he stabbed
the deceased which proved fatal.
"The injury intended by the accused and actually inflicted by him is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not,
must be determined in each case on the basis of the facts and
circumstances. In the instant case, the injuries caused were the
result of blow with a small Kirpan and it cannot be presumed that
the accused had intended to cause the inflicted injuries," it said.
According to the prosecuting, in a fight which followed heated
arguments between the families of the accused and the deceased
in Faridkot in 1995, Singh attacked victims' family, injuring several
of them.
The injured were taken to a hospital where Harbans Singh
succumbed to his injuries, following which an FIR was lodged.