Shambhoo Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant questions legality of the judgment ren
dered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at
B Jodhpur Bench. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Udaipur found the accused guilty of offence punishable under
Section 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC')
and sentenced him to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine with
default stipulation. He was also convicted for offence punish-
C able under.Section 447 IPC and sentenced to undergo 15 days'
RI. Additionally, he was convicted for offence punishable under
Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 O years RI and
pay a fine of Rs.100/-. Similarly, in respect of offence punish
able under Section 324 IPC he was sentenced to undergo RI
D for one year. In appeal, by the impugned judgment, High Court
confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.
3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as fol
lows:
E On 3.8.1999, Vaje Singh (PW-1) lodged a First Informa-
tion Report at Police Station Pahara stating, inter-alia that in
the morning at about 9.00 a.m. his brother Jawan Singh (here
inafter referred to as the 'deceased') was ploughing the field.
He alongwith his father Guiab Singh and elder brother Ram
F Singh was working in the field. At that time, his neighbour ap
pellant Shambhoo Singh, his father Som Singh and mother Smt.
Jeevi arrived there abusing them. Appellant Shambhoo Singh
was carrying knife in his hand. Som Singh and Smt. Jeevi were
carrying lathis. They challenged them and questioned as to how
they were ploughing the field of their possession. There ensued
G a quarrel and exchange of hot words. Appellant Shambhoo
Singh stabbed the knife on the chest of Jawan Singh. He caused
another injury by knife on the stomach. On intervention by his
father, appellant Shambhoo Singh caused injury by knife. He
also caused injuries to his mother Smt. Shanta and elder brother
H Ram Singh. Appellant Shambhoo Singh also caused injuries to
SHAMBHOO SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 89
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
>.;
him. Jawan Singh succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It was A
stated that there was a land dispute between them, which led to
the unfortunate incident.
On this information, police registered a case and pro-
ceeded with the investigation. The post-mortem of the dead B body was conduced by Dr. Mahendra (PW-17) on the spot vide
Ex.P-42. He noticed the following injuries on his person:
1. An intised stab wound - 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm x perforating
up to chest cavity placed in 6th intercostal space
below left Nipple place obliquely. c
On exploration - There is a wound of 1.55. cm x 1.0
cm x 2 cm deep left ventricle of the Heart. Cavity full
of Blood.
2. An incised stab wound - 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm x thoracic D
cavity deep 5 cm lateral to injury No. I placed obliquely.
)
On exploration of wound - There is a wound of 1.0
cm x 2 cm lung tissue deep placed on the left lung.
Thoracic cavity was full of blood.
3. An incised stab wound - 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm x abdominal
cavity deep. On exploration of wound - There was no
injury to any Abdominal Viscera. Intestinal loops are
protruding through this wound.
4. Abrasion- 2.5 cm x 1.0 cm placed on upper 1 /3rd on F
medial side of right leg.
The cause of death was shock due to severe bleeding
following stab wound to chest and abdomen. The injured
persons namely PW-1 Vaje Singh, PW-10 Guiab Singh
G and PW-3 Smt. Shanta were sent to the hospital. Their
injuries were examined by PW-1 I, Dr. B.P. Verma. He
examined the injuries of PW-1 Vaje Singh vide Ex. P-12
and noticed the following injury on his person:
Incised wound 4 x 2 x 1 1/2 cm on left gluteus. H
o·
90 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
.He also examined the i.njuries of PW-10 Gui.ab Singh vide
Ex.P -11 and noticedthe following injuries:
Stab wound transversely with bleeding on left intra
mammary region 4x 1. x plural cavity deep surgical em pug
sema left side.
He also examined the injuries of PW=-3 Smt Shanta vide · )o.-
Ex. P'.'"13 and noticed the following injuries:
Incised wound 1 Yz x 1/2 x Yz cm on-Right-arm M/3·rd Ant.
After usual investigation, thE? police .laid charge sheet
against appellant Shambhoo Singh, his father Som Singh and
mother Smt. Jeevi for offence under Sections 302, 307, 326.
324, 447/34 IPC. The accused pers6hs pleaded not guilty of
the charges levelled against them and claimed trial.
·The trial Court placing reli~nce on the evidence' of PWs 1 ,
2, 3 iand 10 found the evidence to be credible ·and cogent. It
founc;I the evidence of the injured witness to .be ~ithout any blem
ish. Accordingly, the trial Court recorded the convic;;tion and sen-
tence as afore-noted.
In appeal before the High Court, the primary stand taken.
was that the ocular evidence does not inspire corro.boration. It
was submitted that in any event offence punish.able under Sec
tion 302 IPC is not made out as the occurrence occurred in
F course of sudden quarrel. The High Court did not find any sub
stance and dismissed the appeal.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appel
lant submitted that the occurrence took place during the course
of sudden quarrel and, therefore, Section 302 IPC has ilo ap
G plication.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported
the judgments of the trial Court and tha High Court.
6. For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300
H IPC, it has to be established that the act war:: committed without
SHAMBHOO SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
91
. premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a A
sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advan
tage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
7. The Fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC covers acts
done in a sudden fight. The said Exception deals with a case of 8 prosecution not covered by the First Exception, after which its
place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is
founded upon the same principle, for in. both there is absence
of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is
total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is C
only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reasons
and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do.
There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the
injury done is not the di_rect consequence of that provocation. In
fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that
a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the · D
originof the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have
originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them
in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A "sudden fight" implies
mutu-al provocation and blows on each side. The homicide com
mitted is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor E
in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side.
For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable
would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or de
termination to fig ht. A fig ht suddenly takes place, for which both
parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of F
them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his ovvn
conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is
then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to
apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter.
The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) c;
without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the of
fender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or un
usual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person
killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients
mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the "fight" H
A occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in
IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that
there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this
case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on ac
count of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a corn-
s bat between two or more persons whether with or without weap
ons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what
shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact
and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily de
pend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of
c Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden
quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown
that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in
cruel or unusual manner. The expression "undue advantage" as
used in the provision means "unfair advantage".
D 8. In the background facts as considered in the light of
evidence the inevitable conclusion is that the appropriate con
viction would be under Section 304 Part 1, IPC. Custodial sen
tence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. The convic
tion in respect of other offences and the sentences imposed do
E not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The sen
tences shall run concurrently.
9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.
;r , I