2021 INSC 0551
Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos. 11140-11141 of 2019
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.  1040­1041 OF 2021
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.11140­11141 of 2019]
Kala Singh @ Gurnam Singh …..Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab …..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and orders
dated 08.02.2019 and 01.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab
&   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.713   of   2003.     High
Court   has   modified   the   conviction   from   Section   302   IPC   to   Section
304   Part­I   r/w   Section   34,   IPC,   and   sentenced   to   12   years’   rigorous
imprisonment   and   a   fine   of   Rs.10,000/­.     The   conviction   under
Section 201 IPC was maintained.
3. It   is   alleged   that,   the   appellant   and   the   deceased   had   a
sudden   fight   as   the   deceased   had   stolen   the   pigeon   of   the   appellant
1

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos. 11140-11141 of 2019
and   in   the   heat   of   passion   upon   a   sudden   quarrel,   the   co­accused
(Kehar Singh) who had rod with him, gave a blow with the rod on the
right   side   of   the   head   of   the   deceased   resulting   in   his   death.     It   is
further   alleged   that,   thereafter   the   appellant   and   co­accused   have
thrown the dead body of the deceased in the minor canal.
4. Before the trial court, the co­accused was charged for offence
under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, whereas the appellant was charged
for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC.   They were convicted
by   the   Sessions   Court   for   the   aforesaid   offences   and   they   were
sentenced   to   rigorous   imprisonment   for   life   for   the   offence   under
Sections   302/34   IPC   and   three   years’   rigorous   imprisonment   for   the
offence under Section 201 IPC, apart from the fine.
5. In   the   appeal   filed   before   the   High   Court,   High   Court   has
found that as the deceased had stolen the pigeon of appellant­accused
Kala Singh, scuffle took place between Shamber Singh (deceased) and
the appellant Kala Singh. It is further held that the co­accused Kehar
Singh   gave   blow   with   the   rod   on   the   head   of   the   deceased   Shamber
Singh.     As   a   result   of   such   blow   Shamber   Singh   fell   down   and   died.
The   High   Court   has   categorically   found   that   scuffle   had   taken   place
on the spur of the moment and that sudden fight had taken place in
the   heat   of   passion,   upon   a   sudden   quarrel   and   it   was   not   a   pre­
2

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos. 11140-11141 of 2019
meditated   act.     It   has   also   come   on   record   that   appellant,   the   co­
accused   and   the   deceased   had   consumed   liquor   and   even   in   the
chemical   examiner   report   it   was   found   that   deceased   had   also
consumed   liquor.     The   High   Court   has   modified   the   conviction   from
Section   302   IPC   to   304   Part­I   IPC   and   imposed   the   sentence,   of   12
years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/­, on the
appellant   herein   and   co­accused   for   the   offence   under   Section   304
Part­I  with   a default clause  that in  the  event of  non­payment of  fine,
they   shall   undergo   rigorous   imprisonment   for   a   further   period   of   six
months.
6. We   have   heard   Sri   Bharat   Sood,   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant   and   Ms.   Jaspreet   Gogia,   learned   counsel   for   the   State   of
Punjab.  
7. The   only   submission   made   by   learned   counsel   for   the
appellant Sri Bharat Sood is that there was no intention at all on the
part of the appellant­accused to kill the deceased.  It is submitted that
the appellant, co­accused and deceased had consumed liquor and on
the   ground   that   the   deceased   had   stolen   pigeon   of   appellant   Kala
Singh,   scuffle   took   place   between   deceased   Shamber   Singh   and
appellant   Kala   Singh.     It   is   submitted   that   at   that   point   of   time,   the
co­accused   Kehar   Singh   gave   one   rod   blow   on   the   head   of   the
3

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos. 11140-11141 of 2019
deceased   Shamber   Singh   which   resulted   into   his   death.     It   is
submitted that scuffle had taken place on the spur of the moment and
that   sudden   fight   had   taken   place   in   the   heat   of   passion   upon   a
sudden   quarrel.     It   was   not   a   pre­meditated   act   and   there   was   no
intention at all to kill the deceased.  It is submitted that having regard
to the reasoning assigned by the High Court itself High Court ought to
have modified the conviction to Section 304 Part­II but not 304 Part­I,
as   ordered.     To   buttress   his   argument,   learned   counsel   has   placed
reliance   on   a   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Uday   Singh   v.
State  of  U.P. 1
  wherein  this  Court has  modified  the  conviction  to   one
under Section 304 Part­II IPC.  Learned counsel by further submitting
that appellant has  already  served more  than  three  years of sentence,
made a request to reduce the sentence by converting the conviction to
one under Section 304 Part­II IPC.
8. On   the   other   hand,   Ms.   Jaspreet   Gogia,   learned   counsel   for
the   State   of   Punjab   has   contended   that   there   are   absolutely   no
grounds   to   interfere   with   the   judgment   of   conviction   and   order   of
sentence   passed   by   the   High   Court.     It   is   submitted   that   sufficient
leniency   is   already   shown   to   the   appellant­accused   and   there   are   no
grounds   to   interfere   with   the   impugned   judgment.     It   is   further
1  (2002) 7 SCC 79
4

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos. 11140-11141 of 2019
contended   that   the   case   law   which   is   relied   on   by   the   appellant   is
distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to the facts of the case
on hand.
9. Having   heard   learned   counsels   on   both   sides,   we   have
perused the impugned judgment and other material placed on record.
It is clear from the impugned judgment and other  material placed on
record   that   the   incident   happened   one   day   prior   to   the   date   of
panchayat   elections.     On   the   fateful   day,   the   appellant,   co­accused
and deceased went to the house of one Hardev Singh Arora and they
took one bottle of liquor with them.   Thereafter they went to bridge of
Doda   Minor   through   Harike   passage.     There   they   consumed   liquor
where   there   was   a   quarrel   between   the   appellant   and   deceased
Shamber Singh alleging that deceased Shamber Singh had stolen the
pigeon   of   appellant   herein.     The   co­accused   Kehar   Singh   who   had   a
rod   with   him,   gave   a   rod   blow   on   the   head   of   Shamber   Singh.
Immediately   thereafter   he   fell   down   and   as   there   was   no   response
even after half an hour, they have shifted the body to the minor canal.
It is clear from the evidence and other material placed on record that
there was no intention to kill the deceased Shamber Singh.  It is clear
from   the   evidence   on   record   that   the   scuffle   had   taken   place   on   the
spur of the moment and a sudden fight had taken place in the heat of
5

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos. 11140-11141 of 2019
passion  upon  a sudden quarrel.   It was not a pre­meditated  one and
as there was no intention on the part of the appellant and co­accused
either to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death,   the   High   Court   ought   not   to   have   convicted   the   appellant   for
the offence under Section 304 Part­I IPC.  In absence of any intention
on the part of the appellant, we are of the view that it is a clear case
where   the   conviction   of   the   appellant   is   to   be   modified   to   one   under
Section   304   Part­II   IPC   by   maintaining   the   conviction   for   the   offence
under Section 201 IPC.  The case law which is relied on by the learned
counsel   for   the   appellant   also   supports   the   case   of   the   appellant   for
converting his conviction from the one under Section 304 Part­I IPC to
the one under Section 304 Part­II IPC. 
10. The   judgment   relied   on   by   the   counsel   for   the   appellant,   in
the   case   of   Uday   Singh   v.   State   of   U.P. 1
  supports   the   case   of   the
appellant.  The relevant paragraphs 6 and 7 read as under :
“ 6.   From the findings recorded by the trial court as well
as the High Court, it is clear that the fight between the two
parties   started   all   of   a   sudden   as   a   result   of   obstruction
caused   in   digging   of   the   foundation   and   there   is   no
evidence   to   show   that   the   accused   attacked   the   deceased
with deadly or dangerous arms (or weapons). It was only in
a   fight,   hand   to   fist,   that   both   Gainda   Singh   and   the
appellant   had   held   the   neck   of   the   deceased,   Shishupal
Singh   with   such   force   as   to   ultimately   result   in
6

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos. 11140-11141 of 2019
strangulation and his death. It is very  difficult to conceive
as   to   how   much   pressure   was   applied   either   by   Gainda
Singh   or   the   appellant   on   the   deceased's   neck   so   as   to
cause   death.   It   would   be   reasonable   to   hold   that   the
injuries were caused by the appellant on the deceased in a
sudden   fight   where   no   arms   (or   weapons)   were   used   and
that fight took place in the heat of passion and no common
intention to kill the deceased could be inferred. We cannot
definitely conclude who actually inflicted the fatal injury as
the   evidence   on   record   discloses   that   Gainda   Singh   and
the appellant both strangled the deceased, which action is
part of the sudden unarmed fight nor can we conclude that
the   appellant   had   an   intention   to   cause   death   or   cause
such   bodily   injury   as   is   likely   to   cause   death,   though   we
attribute to him knowledge that such act is likely to cause
death.   Thus   the   appellant   and   Gainda   Singh   are   guilty   of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
7.   In   the   circumstances,   we   set   aside   the   conviction
recorded   by   the   trial   court   as   affirmed   by   the   High   Court
under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   and   instead
convict   him   under   Section   304   Part   II   and   reduce   the
sentence to imprisonment for a period of seven years. The
bail granted earlier shall stand cancelled and the appellant
shall surrender before the trial court and be committed to
prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.”
So also, the judgment in the case of  Shahajan Ali & Ors. etc.  v.  State
of   Maharashtra   &   Ors.   etc. 2
  supports   the   case   of   the   appellant.
Paragraph 8 of the judgment, which is relevant, reads as under :
“ 8.   We   have   no   doubt   about   the   complicity   of   all   the
accused   in   the   homicide   of   Sarfraj.   A­1   attacked   the
2  (2017) 11 SC 807
7

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos. 11140-11141 of 2019
deceased   with   the   knife   and   caused   injury   on   his   neck
which   resulted   in   his   death.   The   other   accused   assisted
him   in   committing   the   crime   by   holding   the   hands   of   the
deceased.   However,   the   only   question   that   falls   for   our
consideration   is   whether   the   accused   are   liable   to   be
punished   for   an   offence   under   Section   302   IPC.   After
considering   the   submissions   made   by   the   counsel   for   the
appellants and scrutinising the material on record, we are
of   the   opinion   that   the   accused   are   not   liable   to   be
convicted   under   Section   302   IPC.   We   are   convinced   that
there   was   neither   prior   concert   nor   common   intention   to
commit   a   murder.   During   the   course   of   their   business
activity the accused reached the dhaba where the deceased
was   present.   An   altercation   took   place   during   the
discussion they were having behind the dhaba. That led to
a   sudden   fight   during   which   A­1   attacked   the   deceased
with   a  knife.  Exception  4  to  Section   300  IPC   is   applicable
to   the   facts   of   this   case.   As   we   are   convinced   that   the
accused are responsible for the death  of Sarfraj, we are of
the   opinion   that   they   are   liable   for   conviction   under
Section   304   Part   II   IPC.   We   are   informed   that   A­1   has
undergone   a   sentence   of   seven   years   and   that   A­2   to   A­4
have undergone four years of imprisonment. We modify the
judgment   of   the   High   Court   converting   the   conviction   of
the   accused   from   Section   302   to   Section   304   Part   II   IPC
sentencing   them   to   the   period   already   undergone.   They
shall be released forthwith.”
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed in
part   and   conviction   of   the   appellant   is   modified   from   the   one   under
Section   304   Part­I/34   IPC   to   the   one   under   Section   304   Part­II/34
IPC.     The   appellant   is   hereby   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and the fine of Rs.10,000/­
imposed by the High Court is maintained.   Further, conviction of the
8

Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos. 11140-11141 of 2019
appellant for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentence of three
years’   rigorous   imprisonment   and   the   fine   of   Rs.500/­   are   also
maintained.  
………………………………J.
[R. Subhash Reddy] 
………………………………J.
[Hrishikesh Roy]
New Delhi.
September 21, 2021.
9