File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Case Analysis On Sukhbir Singh v/s State Of Haryana

Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana - Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 2002 SC 1168 [LNIND 2002 SC 134] - Bench: R.P. Sethi & K.G. Balakrishnan - Date of judgment: 20/02/2002

Subject: IPC
Facts:
Lachhman (deceased) and his brother Gulab Singh were smoking hukka and chatting in Lachhmanís residence. While Ram Niwas, son of Lachhman (deceased) was sweeping the street in front of his house with a broom then some mud splashes stuck Sukhbir Singh at a time when he was passing in the street. Sukhbir Singh felt offended and is alleged to have abused Ram Niwas.

When Sukhbir Singh and Ram Niwas were abusing each other, Lachhman separated them and gave two slaps to Sukhbir Singh. Sukhbir Singh went away declaring that a lesson would be taught to them. After Sometime all the 9 accused persons came at the spot. Sukhbir Singh, Behari and Ram Chander, accused were carrying bhalas, accused Pala, Tara and Baijit were carrying gandasas and accused Kidara, Darya and Raj were carrying jailwas. Sukhbir Singh challenged Lachhman to come out so that a lesson could be taught to him.

When Lachhman proceeded towards the door of his house saying that the matter should not be aggravated and as soon as he reached the door of his house, accused Sukhbir Singh gave two thrust-blows with his bhala on the upper-right portion of his chest. Lachhman fell down, after accused Ram Chander caught hold of the legs of Lachhman and dragged him out in the street. Accused Behari gave a bhala-blow on the left side of the chest of Lachhman.

Issue:
Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the accused can avail that benefit of Exception 4 of section 300 of I.P.C.?

Provision:
Exception 4 of section 300, I.P.C.

Petitionerís contention:
The petitioner has contended that there was no enmity between the parties and there is no allegation by the Prosecution that before the occurrence the appellant and others had premeditated. It is well clear from the facts of the case that the occurrence took place when Sukhbir Singh got mud splashes on account of sweeping to the street by Ram Niwas and a quarrel started.

The quarrel appeared to be sudden on account of heat of passion. There was no sufficient lapse of time between the quarrel and then fight which means that the occurrence was "sudden" within the meaning of Exception 4 of section 300, I.P.C.

Respondentís contention:
Learned counsel for the State of Haryana relied upon Virender v. State (NCT) of Delhi [IV (2000) CCR 266 (SC)]. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and find it totally distinguishable because in that case nothing was shown to the court that the occurrence had taken place in a sudden fight and in the heat of passion.

Decision:
It was held by the Supreme Court that, to avail the benefit of Exception 4, the defense is required to Probabilise that the offence was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and the offender had not taken any undue advantage and the offender had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The exception is based upon the principle that in the absence of premeditation and on account of total deprivation of self-control but on account of heat of passion, the offence was committed which, normally a man of sober urges would not resort to.

Sudden fight, though not defined under the Act, Implies mutual provocation. It has been held by the courts that a fight is not per se palliating circumstance and only unpremeditated fight as such. The time gap between quarrel and the fight is an important consideration to decide the applicability of the incident. If there intervenes a sufficient time for passion to subside, giving the accused time to come to normalcy and the fight takes place thereafter, the killing would be murder but if the time gap is not sufficient, the accused may be held entitled to the benefit of this exception.

In the instant case, concededly, there was no enmity between the parties and there is no allegation of the prosecution that before the occurrence, the appellant and others had pre-meditated. As noticed earlier, occurrence took place when Sukhbir Singh got mud splashes on account of sweeping of the street by Ram Niwas and a quarrel ensued. The deceased gave slaps to the appellant for no fault of his. The quarrel appeared to be sudden, on account of heat of passion.

The accused went home and came armed in the company of others though without telling them his intention to commit the ultimate crime of murder. The time gap between the quarrel and the fight is stated to be a few minutes only. According to Gulab Singh when Sukhbir Singh was passing in the street and some mud got splashed on his clothes, he abused Ram Niwas. They both grappled with each other whereupon Lachhman (deceased) intervened and separated them. Accused Sukhbir had abused Lachhman who gave him two slaps. The said accused thereafter went to his home after staring that he would teach him a lesson for the slaps which had been given to him.

After some time he, along with other accused persons, came at the spot and the fight took place. His own house is at a different place. There is a street in between his house and the house of Lachhman (deceased). On the northern side of his house, the house of the appellant is situated. Similarly Ram Niwas has stated that after the quarrel the accused went towards his house and within a few minutes he came back with other accused persons. It is, therefore, probable that there was no sufficient lapse of time between the quarrel and then fight which means that the occurrence was "sudden" within the meaning of Exception 4 of section 300, I.P.C.

Judgment:
we are of the opinion that in the absence of the existence of common object Sukhbir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) of the IPC.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Anamanamudi Sabari Deeksha Choudary
Awarded certificate of Excellence
Authentication No: AP111424626240-24-0421

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers



Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


LawArticles

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

Titile

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of th...

Whether Caveat Application is legally pe...

Titile

Whether in a criminal proceeding a Caveat Application is legally permissible to be filed as pro...

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi

Titile

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Copyright: An important element of Intel...

Titile

The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has its own economic value when it puts into any market ...

The Factories Act,1948

Titile

There has been rise of large scale factory/ industry in India in the later half of nineteenth ce...

Law of Writs In Indian Constitution

Titile

Origin of Writ In common law, Writ is a formal written order issued by a body with administrati...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online


File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly