IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2094 OF 2008

Ajit Singh                                                  ….Appellant

Vs.

State of Punjab         …..

Respondent

J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

                   I concur with the judgment of my learned sister  

to the extent that the appellant’s conviction ought to be  

affirmed.  I am, however, unable to accept that the case  

could be covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 in the  

facts which have been brought out in the course of the  

evidence.  Exception 4 reads thus:

“Culpable  homicide  is  not  murder  if  it  is  committed without premeditation in a sudden  fight  in  the  heat  of  passion  upon  a  sudden  quarrel and without the offender having taken  undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual  manner.”

1

It  will  be  seen  that  this  Exception  

presupposes several conditions for its applicability;  they  

being  (i)  that  the  incident  happened  without  

premeditation,  (ii)  in a sudden fight,  (iii)  in the heat of  

passion,  (iv)  upon a  sudden quarrel  and (v)  without  the  

offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel  

or unusual manner.  I am of the opinion that the appellant  

herein has taken undue advantage and has acted in a cruel  

and unusual  manner which excludes the applicability  of  

Exception 4.  The facts show that there had been a sudden  

quarrel between the appellant and the deceased (a woman  

and  therefore  the  weaker  sex)  and  after  she  had  been  

immobilized he had caused as many as nine injuries on  

her person.  The injuries are re-produced herein below:

“(i)  6 cm long stitched wound bearing 13 black  cotton stitches on front left side of bearing part  of neck extending from the middle of left lower  jaw  up  to  middle  of  neck,  muscle  deep  and  obliquely placed.

(ii)  3  cm  long  stitched  wound  bearing  7  black  cotton stitches placed obliquely and 2 cm below  injury no.1 on its lateral half and muscle deep.

(iii)  7  cm long  stitched  wound  bearing  9  black  cotton stitches on front and right side of neck, 4  

2

cm below middle  of  lower jaw,  obliquely  placed  and muscle deep.

(iv) 6 cm stitched wound bearing 12 black cotton  stitches placed horizontally on front of neck in  the middle and lateral side extending across the  middle  and  1  cm  to  the  right  on  dissection,  underlying  subcutaneous  tissue  and  muscle  are  clear  cut  and  gapping  was  present.  Underlying  laryngopharynx  was  repaired  with  the  nylon  stitches. On removal of stitches the wound was 5  cm  x  2 cm surrounding  muscle  on the  lateral  side were also cut.

(v) 3 cm long curved stitched wound on left side  and  2  cm  below  injury  No.4  wearing  4  black  cotton stitches and was skin deep.

(vi) Brownish scabbed linear superficial abrasion 6  cm long  on  left  side  of  neck  and  1  cm  below  injury No.5.

(vii)  Brownish scabbed  linear  curved  abrasion  6  cm long and 2 cm below injury No.6.

(viii) Incised wound 3 cm  x  2 cm in the lower  part  of  the neck in  the mid line.   6  cm above  upper end of sternum underlying muscle cut and  there is hole 1.5 cm  x  1.5 cm in the interior wall  of trachea (Tracheotomy wound).

(ix) 5 cm long stitched wound on the lateral half  of right eyebrow wearing 5 stitches on dissection  margins were clear cut and it was bone deep.”

We see that all the injuries are on the face or neck of  

the deceased and that injury Nos. (i), (iii), (iv), (viii) and (ix)  

were very extensive leading to her death.  To my mind,  

the case clearly falls within the ambit of Section 302 of  

3

the  IPC  and  the  appellant’s  conviction  under  this  

provision calls for no interference.  The Criminal Appeal is  

dismissed.

   ……………………………..J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

1st September, 2011 New Delhi.

4

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2094 OF 2008

AJIT SINGH             ..  Appellant

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB   ..Respondent  

J U D G M E N T

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.

1. The Indian Penal Code  was enacted in the year  

1860 under which  the offences within the territory of India  

have  been  tried  ever  since  it  was  enacted  dealing  with  

countless  number  of  cases  leading  either  to  acquittal  or  

conviction.  Yet,  the  task  of  the  decision  making  

authorities/courts whether  an offence of culpable homicide is  

murder or culpable homicide  does not amount to murder in  

the  prevailing  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  is  a  

perennial question with which the courts are often confronted.  

5

We are well aware in view of Section 300 of the I.P.C. that all  

murders  are  culpable  homicide   but  all  culpable  homicide  

does not amount to murder and this leads the courts  quite  

frequently to consider as to whether  an accused charged of an  

offence  of  culpable  homicide  is  guilty  of  murder  or  he  has  

committed  culpable  homicide  not  amounting  to  murder.  

When the evidence discloses  a clear case of murder or makes  

out  a finding of culpable homicide not amounting to  murder,  

the task of the courts   to record conviction or acquittal  is  

generally  an  easy  one.   But  this  task  surely  becomes  an  

undaunted   one  when   the  accused  commits  culpable  

homicide/murder  but  the  circumstances   disclose  many  a  

times that it is done  without premeditation  or pre-planning,  

may be to cause grievous hurt, yet it is so grave  in nature  

that it results into death and the role of the factum causing  

death   without  premeditation   becomes  a  secondary  

consideration due to which the decision of the courts in such  

cases  often hinges on discretion while considering  whether  

the case would fall  under Section 302 I.P.C. or it would be  

under 304 Part I or even Part II, I.P.C.   

6

2. On a plain reading  of Sections 299, 300, 302  

and 304 of the Indian Penal Code,  it appears that a given case  

can be conveniently classified into two categories viz. culpable  

homicide amounting to murder which is 302 I.P.C. or culpable  

homicide not amounting to murder which is 304 I.P.C.  But  

when it comes to the actual application of these two sections  

in a given case, the courts are often confronted with a dilemma  

as to whether a case would fall under Section 302 I.P.C. or  

would fall under Section 304 I.P.C. Many a times, this gives  

rise to conflicting decisions of one court or the other giving rise  

to the popular perception among litigants and members of the  

Bar  that  a  particular  court  is  an  acquitting  court  or  is  a  

convicting  one.  This confusion  or dilemma  often emerges  in  

a case when the question for consideration is whether a given  

case  would fall under Section 302 I.P.C. or 304 I.P.C. when  it  

is  difficult  to  decipher   from  the  evidence   whether  the  

intention was to cause merely bodily injury  which would not  

make out an offence of murder or there was clear intention  to  

kill   the  victim  making  out  a  clear  case  of  an  offence  of  

murder.

7

3.    In the instant appeal by special leave, once again the  

aforesaid situation arises which has been preferred against the  

judgment and order dated 11.3.2008 passed by the Division  

Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana  in Criminal  

Appeal No.300-DB of 1999 whereby the High Court had been  

pleased to dismiss the appeal  and thus upheld the order of  

the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Hoshiarpur  convicting   the  

appellant-Ajit  Singh  for  offence   under  Section  302,  I.P.C.  

sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment  for life as  

also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of which he is to  

undergo  further imprisonment for six months.  However, the  

High Court while upholding the conviction and sentence of the  

appellant  herein  under  Section  302  I.P.C.,  was  pleased  to  

acquit the co-accused-Anil Kumar of the charge and conviction  

under Section 302/34 I.P.C.   

4. The  prosecution  case  recorded  in  the  First  

Information  Report  which   led  to  the  conviction  of  the  

appellant-Ajit Singh was lodged on 22.10.1996 on the basis of  

the complaint  made by Jagdish Kumar, PW-6 who stated that  

he was running a private middle school in village  Terkiana  

8

and on the date of the incident  he was not  feeling well due to  

stomach  upset  and  hence  had  come  home  early  at  about  

12.30 noon.  He (PW-6) further stated that he had   gone to  

attend the  call  of  nature towards the field of  the accused-

appellant Ajit Singh who had planted Kinnu plants in his field.  

One Laxmi Devi (the deceased) and her son Rajiv @ Raju (PW-

7) along with Nirmal Kaur were cutting fodder in the field of  

the appellant-Ajit Singh where Ajit Singh and his servant Anil  

Kumar  were also working.   According to the informant  PW-6,  

the appellant   was having an altercation with the deceased  

Laxmi Devi as the appellant complained that she had caused  

damage  to  his  field  which  the  PW-6  heard  while  he  was  

proceeding towards the field.   Soon the appellant  and the  

deceased  started  abusing  each  other  due  to  which  the  

appellant got enraged and asked his servant Anil Kumar   to  

bring  Kassi (spade)   to finish them once  for all.  At this Anil  

Kumar brought the  Kassi (spade) with which he was digging  

the  plants.  But the deceased Laxmi Devi continued hurling  

abuses.   The appellant-Ajit  Singh  is  then  alleged to  have  

taken the  Kassi   from Anil Kumar and asked him to  catch  

9

hold  of  her   so that  he may do away with her  life.   The  

deceased was given a push due to which she fell down on the  

ground  in  a straight posture and Anil Kumar caught her by  

her arms.  Ajit Singh is then alleged to have given two blows  

with  the  Kassi  (spade)  on the  neck  of  the  deceased  after  

which Nirmal Kaur and Rajiv raised alarm.  PW-6 thereafter  

claims to have run towards the appellant but the appellant  

went  towards  his  kothi  situated  in  the  garden  along  with  

spade smeared with blood and Anil Kumar too ran  away from  

the spot.  Further case of the prosecution  is that  the body of  

the Laxmi Devi (deceased) was smeared with blood and Rajiv-  

PW-7  ran  towards   government  colony  raising  alarm  as  a  

consequence  of which the entire village collected at the place  

of incident  and  a conveyance  was arranged on which the  

deceased was taken to Civil Hospital, Dasuya  and PW-6 also  

went to the police station  to lodge the  formal report.  But S.I.  

Samsher Singh (PW-15) met him on the way and recorded his  

statement  on the  basis  of  which a formal  First  Information  

Report  was lodged for offence under Section 307/34, I.P.C.  

and  PW-15  took  up  the  investigation.   Subsequently,   as  

1

Laxmi Devi  died, the case was converted into a case under  

Section 302/34, I.P.C.  

5. The doctor who conducted post-mortem  found  

the following injuries on the body of the deceased:

“(i) 6  cm  long  stitched  wound  bearing  13  black  cotton  stitches  on  front  left  side  of  bearing  part  of  neck  extending from the middle of left lower jaw up to middle  of neck, muscle deep and obliquely placed.  

(ii) 3 cm long stitched wound bearing 7 black cotton stitches  placed  obliquely  and   2  cm  below  injury  no.1  on  its  lateral half and muscle deep.  

(iii) 7 cm long stitched wound bearing 9 black cotton stitches  on front and right side of  neck,  4 cm below middle of  lower jaw, obliquely placed and muscle deep.  

(iv) 6  cm  long  stitched  wound  bearing  12  black  cotton  stitches placed horizontally on front of neck in the middle  and lateral side extending across the middle and 1 cm to  the right on dissection, underlying subcutaneous tissue  and  muscle  are  clear  cut  and  gapping  was  present.  Underlying laryngopharynx was repaired with the nylon  stitches. On removal of stitches the wound was 5 cm x 2  cm surrounding muscle on the lateral side were also cut.  

(v) 3 cm long curved stitched wound on left side and 2 cm  below injury  No.4 wearing  4 black cotton stitches  and  was skin deep.

(vi) Brownish scabbed linear superficial abrasion 6 cm long  on left side of neck and 1 cm below injury no.5.

(vii) Brownish scabbed linear curved abrasion 6 cm long and  2 cm below injury No. 6.  

1

(viii) Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm in the lower part of the neck  in  the  mid  line.  6  cm  above  upper  end  of  sternum  underlying muscle cut and there is hole 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm  in the interior wall of trachea (Tracheotomy wound).  

(ix) 5  cm long  stitched  wound  on  the  lateral  half  of  right  eyebrow wearing 5 stitches on dissection margins were  clear cut and it was bone deep.”  

In the opinion of the doctor  the cause of death was  

due to   throat  cut  injury,  cerebral  edema and nasal  ganlia  

which were    ante mortem  and sufficient   to cause the  death  

in the ordinary course of nature.  

6. After  compliance  of  the   due  formalities   of  

investigation,  submission  of  charge  sheet   and   committal  

proceeding,  the  trial  of  the  two  accused  persons  was  

conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur   who  

was pleased to convict the appellant and the co-accused Anil  

Kumar  (since  acquitted)  under  Section  302/34  I.P.C.  and  

sentenced them as  already indicated hereinafter.   As already  

stated, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Ajit Singh  

was maintained under Section 302 I.P.C. but the co-accused  

Anil Kumar was acquitted.  Hence, this appeal has now been  

1

preferred by the  sole  appellant  Ajit  Singh and this  court  is  

seized  with  consideration  of   the  question  whether  the  

conviction and sentence  of the accused-appellant Ajit Singh is  

fit to be sustained or not.

7. In  so  far  as   the  genesis   and  manner  of  

occurrence  and the  factum of death of deceased Laxmi Devi  

is concerned, the counsel for the parties have been heard at  

some length and the evidence have been scrutinized but I am  

unable to accept the contention that the incident did not take  

place in the manner as alleged  by the prosecution and I fully  

agree with  the  findings recorded by the courts below  that the  

deceased Laxmi Devi died in the manner and at the place as  

alleged by the prosecution.   

8. The  only  ground  which  now  needs  to  be  

considered in this appeal is whether on the existing facts and  

circumstances  emerging out of the genesis, manner and place  

of  occurrence,  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  is  fit  to  be  

sustained under Section 302, I.P.C. or it would be a case of  

conversion of conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part-

I of the I.P.C.  Although, we are all aware of the ingredients of  

1

Section 300 defining culpable homicide amounting to murder,  

it  would  be  worthwhile  to  recollect  the  exceptions  therein  

specially exception 4 to  Section 300 I.P.C. which lays down  

when culpable homicide does not amount to murder and may  

be quoted for facility of reference:

“Exception  4  to  Section  300.  –Culpable  homicide  is  not  murder  if  it  is  committed  without premeditation in a sudden fight in the  heat   of  passion  upon a  sudden  quarrel  and  without  the  offender  having  taken  undue  advantage  or  acted  in  a  cruel  or  unusual  manner.”  

9.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  application  of  

exception 4 depends upon the facts and evidence in a given  

case  and   although  there  are  innumerable  case  laws  and  

commentaries on the subject, the courts more often than not  

have to keep wondering  into the wilderness of facts  as to  

whether a given case would fall under Section 302, I.P.C. or  

would fall under Section 304 Part-I or II of the I.P.C.  

10. The question under the facts of this case once  

again arises whether the conviction of the appellant-Ajit Singh  

is fit  to be sustained under Section 302 of the  I.P.C. or it  

would be a fit  case  of  altering the  conviction and sentence  

1

from 302 I.P.C. to 304 Part-I.  In this context, it is noticed that  

the deceased  Laxmi Devi  and her son Rajiv @ Raju PW-7  

along with Nirmal Kaur were  cutting fodder from the field of  

appellant-Ajit Singh when Ajit  Singh and Laxmi Devi started  

quarrelling with each other as Ajit Singh complained that they  

have been illegally  entering  into  his  field  for  cutting  fodder  

causing  damage  to  his  field  and  spoiling  the  Kinnu  crops.  

Even as per the case of the prosecution, the deceased started  

to abuse Ajit Singh   which provoked him to order his servant  

Anil Kumar to bring Kassi (spade)   to finish them.  The place  

of incident thus admittedly is of Ajit Singh wherein Ajit Singh  

ordered Anil  Kumar to  bring  Kassi and then asked him to  

catch hold of Laxmi Devi so that he may do away with her life.  

Ajit Singh after giving the deceased a push, is alleged to have  

given two blows on the neck of  the deceased  at which the  

informant  PW-7  raised  an  alarm shouting  “mar  ditta  mar  

ditta” .  PW-6  thereafter chased the appellant who is said to  

have  run  towards  the  accused-appellant  but  the  appellant  

went towards his kothi  situated in the same garden along  

with  the  spade  smeared  with  blood  and  his  servant  Anil  

1

Kumar (since acquitted) also ran  away  from the spot.  The  

deceased thereafter was taken to the hospital and after  three  

days of treatment  died on 25.10.1996 at  about 4.35 p.m.

11. Thus,  from  the  prosecution  story   itself   it  

emerges that  when the deceased was cutting the grass for  

fodder in the field  of Ajit Singh, Ajit Singh   was not armed  

with any weapon and it  is only  when the deceased hurled  

filthy  abuses to the appellant, he directed his servant Anil  

Kumar to bring a Kassi  and ordered him to catch hold of the  

deceased after which he gave two blows on the neck of the  

deceased as a result of which  she died on the 4th day of the  

incident.   

12. Thus on  perusal of the evidence on record, it  

is  clear  that   the  incident  happened  on  the  spur  of  the  

moment and was not a premeditated assault on the deceased.  

Nevertheless, the appellant  had inflicted grievous  injury on  

the neck of the deceased but she did not die instantly and was  

taken to the hospital where treatment was given  to her for  

three days and finally she succumbed to the injury.  Hence, it  

can be  logically  and reasonably inferred that the accused-

1

appellant although inflicted grievous injury on the neck of the  

deceased and gave two blows, the assault was not the result of  

pre-planning or pre-meditated assault and the same did not  

result in instantious death of the deceased but she was taken  

to  the  hospital  for  treatment  where  she  succumbed  to  the  

injury after four days of the incident.   

13. Thus,  the  appellant  no  doubt   inflicted  the  

injury on the deceased  with the intention of  causing such  

bodily injury which could result in her death and in that view  

of  the  facts  and  circumstance,  knowledge  will  have  to  be  

attributed to him that he inflicted injury on the deceased to  

cause  death  of  the  victim  which  was  sufficient   in  the  

ordinary course of nature  to cause death.   In  that event, he  

although will have to be held guilty of the offence of murder  in  

view of the ingredients of the offence given out  under Section  

300 of the I.P.C., it cannot be ruled out  that the case of the  

appellant  in  view of  the  genesis  and manner  of  occurrence  

would  fall   under  exception  4  of   Section  300  and  hence  

would be liable  for conviction under Section 304 Part-I for the  

reason  that  it  cannot  be  held  with  certainty  that  he  

1

undoubtedly had the intention to kill and not merely to cause  

grievous hurt.  In support of this view, it would be relevant  to  

refer  to  the  case of   Patel Rasiklal  Becharbhai Vs.  State  of   

Gujarat,  AIR 1992 SC 1150,  wherein  this  Court   had been  

pleased to hold that inflictment  of the injury  on the vital part  

of the body  with the agricultural instrument  by the  enraged  

accused  in  a  sudden quarrel  cannot  be  held  to  have  been  

caused intentionally.    

14. In order to hold whether   an offence would fall  

under Section 302, or 304 Part-I of the I.P.C., the courts have  

to be  extremely  cautious  in examining whether the same  

falls under Section 300 of the I.P.C. which  states whether  a  

culpable homicide is a murder, or it would fall under its five  

exceptions which lays  down when culpable  homicide  is  not  

murder and in this category further  lays down  that  culpable  

homicide  is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the  

power  of self-control by  giving  sudden provocation causes  

the death of the person who gave the provocation, or causes  

the death of any other person by mistake or accident.    

1

15. While examining  the case of the appellant  in  

the light of the  settled legal position that culpable homicide  

would  not amount to murder if the offender was deprived of  

the  power  of  self-control  on  account  of  grave  and  sudden  

provocation, I am of the view  that the appellant’s case will  

have to be treated to be a case falling under the 4th   exception  

of Section 300 and hence  would be a case under Section 304  

Part  I  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  for  more  than  one  reason  

deduced from the evidence on record.  In the first place, the  

deceased Laxmi Devi had been cutting grass for fodder in the  

field  of   the  appellant-Ajit  Singh   and  when  Ajit  Singh  

reprimanded the deceased and her companion  not to spoil his  

Kinnu  crop,  the  deceased  started  altercation  with  the  

appellant and abused  him which provoked the appellant-Ajit  

Singh to order his  companion Anil Kumar (since acquitted) to  

bring Kassi (spade) which  instruction was carried out by Anil  

Kumar  and thereafter Ajit Singh inflicted two blows on the  

deceased Laxmi Devi.   However,  she did not die instantly and  

was taken to the hospital where she underwent treatment for  

four days and finally succumbed to the injuries.   From this it  

1

can  be safely inferred that although the appellant-Ajit Singh  

had the intention and knowledge to cause grievous  injury on  

the deceased which could have resulted into the death of the  

deceased, yet it cannot  be inferred without doubt  that the  

intention of the appellant-Ajit Singh  was necessarily to cause  

death and not  merely to cause grievous hurt as he did not  

inflict  repeated blows on the deceased and the deceased in  

fact had survived for four days after the assault.  In addition  

to this, it has also come in evidence that PW-6/informant had  

chased  the  appellant  but  the  appellant  did  not  pursue  by  

entering  into  further  scuffle  with  the  prosecution  party.  

Besides this, the case of the prosecution regarding common  

intention to commit murder already stands negatived by the  

High Court vide the impugned judgment and order as the plea  

of common intention to commit murder is no longer existing  

since the co-accused Anil Kumar was acquitted of the charge  

under Section 302/34 I.P.C. by the High Court.   Thus, the  

common intention to kill the deceased will have to be treated  

as missing in the prosecution case and only individual liability  

of the appellant giving fatal blows will determine whether the  

2

charge  would  be  sustained  under  Section  302  I.P.C.  or  it  

would fall under 304 Part-I of the I.P.C.  

16. On an analysis of the case of the prosecution  

in the light of the evidence on record, I am clearly of the view  

that  the  appellant’s  conviction  and  sentence  under  Section  

302, I.P.C. cannot be sustained but considering the intensity  

and gravity of the assault which led finally to the death of the  

victim Laxmi Devi  he would certainly be held  guilty  under  

Section  304  Part-I,  I.P.C.  and  hence  I  deem  it  just  and  

appropriate  to set  aside the conviction and sentence  of  the  

appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and the same is altered to  

his conviction under Section 304 Part I, I.P.C.  Accordingly,  

the sentence of life imprisonment  shall be reduced to a period  

of ten years under Section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C.   Thus, the  

appeal stands partly allowed to this extent.   

……………………….J (Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi September 1, 2011

2

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2094   OF 2008

AJIT SINGH ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

In view of the divergence in views,  

the  Registry  is  directed  to  place  the  matter  

before  the  Hon'ble  Chief  Justice  of  India  for  

placing the matter before a larger Bench.

 .................J.         (HARJIT SINGH  BEDI)

 ....................J.                             (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

New Delhi, September 1, 2011.

2