Supreme Court Modifies Conviction in Fatal Family Dispute Case: Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018)

Date of the Judgment: May 08, 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 418

Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., R. Banumathi, J.

Can a heated argument during a family dispute lead to a murder conviction, or should it be considered a case of culpable homicide? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, modifying the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case highlights the importance of considering the circumstances of a crime, particularly when it occurs during a sudden fight without premeditation. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, with Justice Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a family dispute over land ownership and a missing dog. The deceased, Harbhajan Singh, his son Sukhwinder Singh, and Harbhajan’s brother Satnam Singh, along with Satnam’s son Gurwinder Singh, were involved in the dispute. Harbhajan Singh’s other brothers, who lived in Italy, also had a stake in the land. The land was being cultivated by Satnam Singh, but the other brothers wanted Harbhajan Singh to cultivate it. This led to several Panchayat meetings, which failed to resolve the issue. Adding to the tension, Satnam Singh’s dog went missing, and he blamed Harbhajan Singh’s family.

On November 2, 2007, at around 4:00 PM, the families gathered at a tubewell near their village to discuss the land dispute and the missing dog. During the discussion, heated words were exchanged, leading to a physical altercation. Satnam Singh and Gurwinder Singh allegedly punched and kicked Harbhajan Singh and Sukhwinder Singh. Satnam Singh then shouted to catch Harbhajan Singh to teach him a lesson for partitioning the land. Gurwinder Singh then retrieved an axe from a nearby room and struck Harbhajan Singh on the head. Harbhajan Singh was taken to the hospital, but succumbed to his injuries on December 1, 2007.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, based on the testimonies of Sukhwinder Singh (PW-6) and Sandeep Singh (PW-7), convicted Gurwinder Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, and Satnam Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (common intention). The trial court rejected the defense’s claim that a servant named Mithu was responsible for the injuries. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. The appellants then appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which upheld the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines murder, and its exceptions, particularly Exception 4, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder in cases of sudden fight. Section 300 of the IPC states:

“300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—Secondly.—If the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—Thirdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC states:

“Exception 4.—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.”

Section 304 of the IPC defines punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder:

“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that there was a delay of five days in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), raising doubts about the prosecution’s case.
• They contended that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused, suggesting that the complainant party were the aggressors.
• The appellants argued that even if the prosecution’s version of events was accepted, the offense would not amount to murder under Section 302 IPC, as the attack occurred during a sudden quarrel while trying to settle a land dispute.
• They submitted that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation or undue advantage.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution, along with the nature of the head injuries inflicted on the deceased, justified the trial court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC.
• They argued that the High Court had rightly dismissed the appeal.

The appellants relied on the fact that they also sustained injuries during the incident, which the prosecution did not adequately explain. The prosecution, on the other hand, emphasized the severity of the injuries inflicted on the deceased and the testimonies of the eyewitnesses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC was justified?
2. Whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC?
3. What is the nature of the offense, whether it would fall under Section 304 Part-I IPC or Part-II IPC?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court followed Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and others [(2001) 6 SCC 145]* to determine that the non-explanation of injuries on the accused does not automatically discredit the prosecution’s case, especially when the injuries are not serious.
• The court referred to Rajender Singh v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 298]*, Ram Sunder Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1998) 7 SCC 365]* and Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. [(1990) 3 SCC 190]* to reiterate that the prosecution is not always obliged to explain the injuries on the accused.
• The court followed Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa [(2004) 11 SCC 395]* to understand the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, emphasizing that it applies to cases of sudden fights without premeditation.
• The court followed Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2016) 3 SCC 317]* to understand that the emphasis in clause three of Section 300 IPC is on the sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The incident occurred during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation.
• There was no evidence that the appellants took undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
• The injuries sustained by the accused, while not explained by the prosecution, were not serious enough to undermine the prosecution’s case.
• The court considered the fact that the deceased was drunk at the time of the incident.
• The court noted that the fight was a result of a verbal altercation that escalated into a physical confrontation.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented and concluded that the incident was a result of a sudden fight without premeditation, thereby attracting Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.

The court noted that while the accused used an axe, a formidable weapon, the deceased survived for about a month, indicating that the accused did not act in a cruel or unusual manner. “Though accused Gurwinder Singh used the axe which is a formidable weapon, but Harbhajan Singh survived for about one month. The appellants therefore cannot be said to have taken undue advantage of the same.”

The court also considered the delay in lodging the FIR, which was explained by the ongoing talks for settlement. “There was also a delay of five days in lodging the FIR; the reason being, talks were still going on for settling the matter.”

The court emphasized that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which requires that the act be committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, without undue advantage or cruel manner. “For bringing in operation of “ Exception 4” to Section 300 IPC, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

The court concluded that the accused intended to cause the injury which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, thus modifying the conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC. “The accused intended to inflict that injury on Harbhajan Singh which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 3 SCC 317, it was held as under:- ‘The emphasis in clause three of Section 300 IPC is on the sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.'”

Key Takeaways

• A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC can be modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC if the act is committed in a sudden fight without premeditation.
• The non-explanation of injuries on the accused does not automatically discredit the prosecution’s case, especially if the injuries are not serious.
• The court will consider the circumstances of the incident, including the presence of a sudden quarrel, lack of premeditation, and whether the offender took undue advantage or acted cruelly.
• The intention to cause an injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is a critical factor in determining the offense.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was modified to Section 304 Part-I IPC.
• The appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for seven years.
• Appellant Gurwinder Singh was ordered to be released forthwith, as he had already served more than ten years.
• Appellant Satnam Singh was directed to surrender to serve the remaining period of his sentence.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of sudden fights without premeditation, the conviction can be modified from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC. This judgment reinforces the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case and the exceptions provided under Section 300 of the IPC. The court did not change any previous position of law, but rather applied the existing legal principles to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

In the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellants from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC. The court found that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation, and the appellants did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner. This judgment underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case and the legal exceptions provided under the Indian Penal Code.