Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1149  OF 2013

Sanjeev ... Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana         … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

PRAFULLA C.  PANT, J.

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  judgment  and  order  

dated 24.5.2011 passed by the High Court  of  Punjab and  

Haryana  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.  827-DB of  2002  whereby  

conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions  

Judge  (FTC),  Sonepat  against  the  appellant  under  Section  

302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been affirmed.

Page 2

Page 2 of 16

2. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

perused the record.

3. Prosecution  story,  in  brief,  is  that  PW-9  Raj  Singh,  

resident of Village Hassanpur, had three brothers.  Raj Pal @  

Pale (deceased) was younger to him.  All the four brothers  

used to live separately.  On 11.1.2000, Raj Singh had gone  

to Sonepat with his brother Raj Pal for some personal work.  

Raj Singh got held up in Sonepat,  and Raj Pal left for the  

Village. Later, he (Raj Singh) also proceeded from Sonepat.  

At about 10.00 p.m., when Raj Singh on his way to Village  

Hassanpur,  alighted  from  three-wheeler,  at  G.T.  Road  

crossing, he noticed Sanjeev @ Gaja (appellant) with blood  

stained clothes fleeing from the side of Government tubewell  

towards Murthal  bus stand.   He (Raj  Singh)  could identify  

Sanjeev in the headlights of the vehicles, but did not have an  

idea that  his  brother (Raj  Pal)  had been murdered.   After  

meals he went to bed.  In the next morning, Shakuntala (wife  

of Raj Pal) came to him and told that Raj Pal had not reached  

home.  On this,  a search was made by Raj Singh and his

Page 3

Page 3 of 16

another brother Ram Kumar regarding their missing brother.  

At about 9.00 a.m., they reached near water supply tubewell  

and noticed a man lying only with trousers.  They went near  

to see the person and realized that their brother Raj Pal has  

been killed who was lying in the pool of blood.  There were  

wounds on the forehead, nose and eye brows of the body.  

Shirt,  sweater,  slippers,  etc.  were lying at  some distance.  

Suspecting that Sanjeev @ Gaja might have killed or helped  

someone killing Raj Pal, he went to the police post and gave  

First  Information Report  (Ex.  PG/1)  on 12.1.2000 at  10.40  

a.m.

4. PW-6  A.S.I.  Jagat  Singh  recorded  the  above  First  

Information  Report  relating  to  offence  punishable  under  

Section 302 IPC at Police Post, Sadar, Sonepat.  Police team  

headed by PW-14 S.I. Yashpal Singh with PW-8 H.C. Mahinder  

Singh  and  Constable  Rajeev  Singh,  along  with  informant,  

proceeded  towards  the  place  where  the  dead  body  was  

lying.  The body of the deceased was taken into possession  

and sealed.   The inquest  report  (Ex.  PE/2)  was  prepared.

Page 4

Page 4 of 16

Shirt, sweater, slippers, etc. and a blood stained brick were  

also taken into possession by the police and a memorandum  

was prepared.  Sealed dead body of Raj Pal was handed over  

to   PW 8 H.C. Mahinder Singh, and sent for post mortem  

examination through Constable Ramesh Kumar and Rajbir.  

PW-11 S.I. Ram Chander took up investigation.

5. PW-3,  Dr.  Purnima  Ahuja  of  Government  Hospital,  

conducted post mortem examination on the very day, i.e.,  

12.1.2000, on the dead body of Raj Pal, with her colleague  

Dr.  R.N.  Tehlan.   Following  ante-mortem  injuries  were  

recorded  by  the  team  of  medical  officers  who  prepared  

autopsy report (Ex PA/1/2000): -

“1. Multiple contusion of varying sizes 5 x 1 cm,  4x3, 2x1, 3x1, 3x1 and 1x1 cms, present on  whole of back about 10 to 12 in number.  On  cut  sections  blood  was  found  on  the  sub  coetaneous tissue.

2. Defused  swelling  was  present  on  the  front  and left side of chest of size 20x10 cms.  On  examination  crepitus  was  found.   On  exploration,  there was massive presence of  blood in the sub coetaneous tissue deep to  the  chest  wall  and pericardium and pleura.  No.  3rd to  9th ribs  were  found  fractured  at  multiple paces.  Left thoracic cavity was full

Page 5

Page 5 of 16

of blood (about 2 liters) left lung was badly  lacerated on right side.  The 3rd and 6th ribs  were fractured medially  and thoracic  cavity  was full of blood.  The lung was lacerated.

3. Lacerated  wounds  5x2  cms  present  on  the  middle  of  the  forehead  vertically  placed.  Underlines  bone  was  fractured.   C.V.  was  present.

4. Lacerated  wound  3x2  cms.  present  on  the  right side just above the right eye.  C.V. was  present.

5. Defused  swelling  were  present  on  the  left  cheek 6x5 cms.

6. Defused swelling on the left eye.

7. Contusion  6x5 cms  present  on the  back  of  the left shoulder.”

It  was  opined  by  the  two  doctors,  who  conducted  post  

mortem  examination,  that  the  above  mentioned  ante  

mortem injuries were sufficient to cause death.  

 6. Mean  while,  accused  Sanjeev  who  had  gone  to  

Government Hospital in the intervening night of 11.1.2000  

and 12.1.2000, was also medically examined by PW-13, Dr.  

C.P. Arora of General Hospital, Sonepat, at about 1.30 a.m.  

(12.1.2000), and following injury was found on his person: -

Page 6

Page 6 of 16

“22  x  0.2  x  2  to  0.5  cm incised  wound  on  the  posterior  surface  of  the  left  fore-arm.   It  was  superficial in depth and skin deep only.  There was  a corresponding cut on the shirt.”

7. After examination of the witnesses and on completion  

of  the  investigation,  the  Investigating  Officer  submitted  

charge sheet against accused Sanjeev (appellant) for his trial  

in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.  The  

forensic  report  regarding  blood  group  of  the  blood  stains  

found on the clothes of accused and that of deceased was  

also obtained.  The case was committed by the Magistrate to  

the Court of Sessions and necessary copies were provided to  

the accused as required under Section 207 of the Criminal  

Procedure Code.   After  hearing on charge,  Sessions Judge  

framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC  

against accused Sanjeev on 23.5.2000 to which he pleaded  

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. Thereafter, prosecution got examined fifteen witnesses,  

namely, PW-1, A.S.I. Rajiv Kumar (witness of disclosure as to  

the  recovery  of  blood  stained  clothes  of  accused),  PW-2,  

Constable  Mahesh  Chander  (in  whose  presence  blood

Page 7

Page 7 of 16

stained clothes of the deceased were taken into possession  

and recovery  memo Ex.  PB prepared),  PW-3,  Dr.  Purnima  

Ahuja  (who  conducted  post  mortem  examination),  PW-4,  

Jaipal (who took photographs of dead body of Raj Pal before  

the body was sealed), PW-5, Rampal Patwari (who prepared  

site plan Ex.-PF), PW-6, A.S.I. Jagat Singh (who recorded the  

First Information Report Ex.-PG/1), PW-7, Inspector Ram Kala  

(who arrested the accused), PW-8, H.C. Mahinder Singh (to  

whom the dead body was handed over after the same was  

sealed),  PW-9,  Raj  Singh  (informant  and  brother  of  the  

deceased),  PW-10,  Balwan  Singh  (another  brother  of  the  

deceased), PW-11, S.I. Ram Chander (who sent a letter Ex.-

PO/1 requesting the Government Hospital for post mortem  

examination), PW-12, Om Prakash (witness of extra judicial  

confession), PW-13, Dr. C.P. Arora (who examined the injury  

on person of the accused), PW-14, S.I. Yashpal Singh (who  

went to the place of incident along with other police officials  

and informant, after First Information Report was registered,  

and prepared the inquest  report),  and PW-15,  Azad Singh  

(another witness of extra judicial confession).

Page 8

Page 8 of 16

9. The  oral  and  documentary  evidence  was  put  to  the  

accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code  

on 16.1.2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, in response to  

which the accused pleaded that the same was incorrect, and  

stated that he was falsely implicated.

10. The  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Fast  Track  Court,  

Sonepat,  after hearing the parties,  found accused Sanjeev  

guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC  

and convicted him accordingly on 3.10.2002.  The parties  

were  heard  on  sentence  on  5.10.2002  and  the  convict  

(Sanjeev)  was  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  life  and  

directed to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of  

fine he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a  

period of two months.  

11. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.10.2002/  

5.10.2002,  the  convict  preferred  appeal  before  the  High  

Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana,  which  was  registered  as  

Criminal Appeal No. 827-DB of 2002.  The High Court, after

Page 9

Page 9 of 16

hearing the parties,  concurred with the view taken by the  

trial court and dismissed the appeal.  Hence, this appeal by  

way of special leave.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that  

it is a case of circumstantial evidence and no one has seen  

the appellant committing the crime.  It is further argued that  

the circumstances shown by the prosecution in the present  

case do not complete the chain, and the courts below have  

erred in law in holding the appellant guilty of the charge of  

murder.  To appreciate above argument, we have to see the  

circumstances  which  are  brought  on  record  against  the  

appellant.  The prosecution has established following facts in  

this case against the accused: -

i) PW-9,  Raj  Singh,  informant,  saw  the  accused  

running away on 11.1.2000 at about 10.00 p.m. and  

his clothes were stained with blood.

ii) On  12.1.2000,  when  PW-13,  Dr.  C.P.  Chopra  

medically  examined  the  accused  Sanjeev  in  the

Page 10

Page 10 of 16

wee  hours,  it  was  found  that  the  accused  had  

suffered incised wound measuring 22 x 0.2 x 2 to  

0.5 cm. on the posterior surface of left  fore-arm,  

and there was cut in the shirt.  This witness (PW-

13) sent Ruka (memorandum) Ex. PP/1 to the in-

charge, Police Post, General Hospital (even before  

F.I.R. was lodged).

iii) PW-12,  Om  Prakash,  has  stated  that  accused  

Sanjeev  disclosed  him  on  14.1.2000,  that  on  

11.1.2000,  he (accused)  had altercation with  Raj  

Pal after consuming liquor whereafter he assaulted  

the deceased with the brick.

iv) PW-1, A.S.I. Rajiv Kumar, and PW-7, Inspector Ram  

Kala, have adduced the evidence that on 15.1.2000  

on disclosure (Ex.-PA) from the accused Sanjeev,  

his blood stained clothes which were concealed by  

him in a wooden box in his house, were recovered.

Page 11

Page 11 of 16

v) From  the  forensic  laboratory  report,  it  is  

established that  same blood group was  found in  

the  blood  stained  clothes  recovered  i.e.  blood  

group ‘O’.

13. The  above  circumstances,  read  together,  make  us  

belief  that it  is only the appellant who could have caused  

death of Raj Pal in the intervening night of 11.1.2000 and  

12.1.2000.  When the prosecution has successfully proved  

that  accused  Sanjeev  suffered  the  injury,  as  mentioned  

above,  almost  at  the  same time  when  the  deceased  had  

suffered  the  injuries,  there  should  have  been  some  

explanation on the record from the side of the defence as to  

how  he  (accused)  received  the  injury  and  went  to  

Government Hospital where his injury was recorded by PW-

13, Dr. C.P. Arora, before giving him medical treatment.  In  

absence  thereof,  the  courts  below  had  no  reason  to  

disbelieve  the  evidence  relating  to  above  chain  of  

circumstances and they rightly recorded the finding that it  

was accused Sanjeev only who could have caused death with

Page 12

Page 12 of 16

the knowledge that act committed by him is likely to result  

in death of the person assaulted.

14. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that there was  

no motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of  

Raj Pal, as such, in absence of motive, it cannot be said that  

it  was  only  the  appellant  who  could  have  committed  the  

crime.

15. It  is  settled  principle  of  law  that,  to  establish  

commission of murder by an accused, motive is not required  

to be proved.  Motive is something which prompts a man to  

form an intention. The intention can be formed even at the  

place of incident at the time of commission of crime.  It is  

only either intention or knowledge on the part of the accused  

which is  required to  be seen in  respect  of  the offence of  

culpable  homicide.  In  order  to  read  either  intention  or  

knowledge, the courts have to examine the circumstances,  

as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of  

mind of the accused.

Page 13

Page 13 of 16

16. In the present case, from the evidence of PW-12 Om  

Prakash,  it  reflects  that  while  making  extra  judicial  

confession, the appellant narrated that after both he and Raj  

Pal got drunk, they engaged into an altercation whereafter  

scuffle took place, and the appellant caused injuries on the  

forehead  and  chest  of  the  deceased.   This  fact  gets  

corroborated from the statement of PW-13, Dr.  C.P. Arora,  

who recorded wound measuring 22 x 02 x 2 to .5 cm in the  

medical report soon after the time of the incident,  on the  

person of the appellant.

17. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC provides that culpable  

homicide  is  not  murder  if  it  is  committed  without  pre-

meditation 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.  

Explanation to Exception 4 to the Section further provides  

that  it  is  immaterial  in  such  cases  which  party  offers  

provocation or commits the first assault.

Page 14

Page 14 of 16

18. In our opinion, when the prosecution evidence relating  

to extra judicial confession made before PW-12, Om Prakash,  

is believed by the courts below to examine as to whether act  

committed  by  the  accused  constitutes  culpable  homicide  

amounting  to  murder  or  not,  they  should  have  read  the  

statement as a whole, and the circumstances, in which the  

injuries  were  caused  by  the  appellant  to  the  deceased,  

should  not  have been ignored.   Having gone through the  

evidence on record and considering the submissions of the  

learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the  

act  committed  by  the  appellant  in  the  present  case  is  

covered by  Exception  4  to  Section  300 IPC,  i.e.,  culpable  

homicide not  amounting  to  murder,  as  such the  same is,  

punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.

19. For the reasons, as discussed above, we are inclined to  

partly interfere with the impugned orders.   The conviction  

and sentence recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the  

High Court in respect of offence punishable under Section  

302  IPC  against  the  appellant,  is  set  aside.   Instead,  the

Page 15

Page 15 of 16

appellant  is  convicted  under  Section  304  Part  I,  IPC  and  

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years  

and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which the appellant  

shall  undergo  imprisonment  for  a  further  period  of  two  

months. Amount of fine if deposited in compliance of orders  

of courts below shall be treated to have been deposited in  

compliance  of  direction  of  this  Court  as  above.   The  

appellant  is  said  to  be  in  jail  and  he  shall  complete  the  

sentence, as awarded by this Court.

20. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.

……………………………………..J. [T.S. Thakur]

……………………………………..J. [Rohinton Fali Nariman]

……………………………………..J. [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi; February 19, 2015.

Page 16

Page 16 of 16