1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.875 OF 2009 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.6649 OF 2008]

RAMESH KUMAR @ TONI                        Appellant(s)

                     VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA                           Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High  

Court dated 29.4.2008 whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant against the  

judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court for an offence punishable under  

Section 302 IPC, has been dismissed.  

The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:-

The incident happened on 28th September, 1996.  The deceased Rajinder  

Pal was a student of the I.T.I.,  Ambala.  His mother Shakuntla PW.8 and uncle  

Sunder PW.9 had gone to the fields to harvest the maize crop in the morning.  At  

about 4.00 P.M. the deceased took tea for his mother and uncle.  At about 5.00 P.M.  

all three were returning to the village with the deceased going ahead by 10-15 paces.  

As the deceased was walking through the vacant field of the accused, the appellant  

abused him for having entered his field.  The deceased also abused the appellant in  

return.  On this, the appellant who was holding a kassi (spade) while mending the  

ridges of the field inflicted one blow on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, the

2

appellant ran away along with his weapon.  Shakuntla and Sunder removed the  

injured to a clinic at the bus stand, but they were advised to take him to Ambala.  

Accordingly, the injured was taken to Ambala, where he died in the Emergency  

Ward at about 8.40 P.M.  The trial court relying on the evidence of the two eye  

witnesses convicted the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section  

302  IPC  and  sentenced  him  to  undergo  imprisonment  for  life.   As  already  

mentioned above, the order of conviction and sentence  has been maintained by the  

High Court.  

When this matter came up for hearing before this Court on 11.9.2008,  

notice was issued confined to the nature of the offence only.  The learned counsel for  

the respondent has also put in appearance and we have heard their submissions on  

this limited score.   

Mr.  Mahabir  Singh,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  

pointed out that the case of the appellant would fall within exception 4 of Section  

300 of the IPC and since the said case was not one of murder but culpable homicide  

not amounting to murder, it would be punishable under Section 304 of the IPC.

The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent  has,  however,  

submitted  that  both  the  trial  court  as  well  as  the High  Court  had rejected this  

argument and held that the case related to a murder.  

Exception 4 to Section 300 reads as under:-

"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".

A  bare  perusal  of  the  aforesaid  provision  indicates  that   culpable

3

homicide is not murder (i) if it is committed without premeditation (2) in a sudden  

fight (3) in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and (4) without the offender  

having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.  

We  find  that  the  prosecution  story  itself  spells  out  that  all  these  

conditions are satisfied in the present case.  As per the eye witnesses, PW.8 and  

PW.9,  the  incident  had  happened  when  the  deceased  accompanied  by  the  two  

witnesses were passing through the vacant field of the accused, the appellant had  

abused him for having entered his field on which the deceased had also abused the  

appellant.  It appears that it was after this altercation that the appellant inflicted a  

spade (kassi) blow on the head of the deceased.  We also see from the prosecution  

evidence that though the fields of the two parties were adjacent to each other, no  

quarrel of any kind had earlier taken place. In this view of the matter, we are of the  

opinion  that  the  case  of  the  appellant  would  fall  under  exception  4  and  be  

punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC as a single injury had been inflicted  

on the head of the deceased.   

We,  accordingly,  allow  this  appeal  and  convert  the  conviction  of  the  

appellant from one under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC and and reduce  

the sentence from life imprisonment to seven years R.I.  We also direct that if the  

accused has already undergone seven years of imprisonment, he shall be released  

forthwith, if not required in any other case.  

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

...................J. (Harjit Singh Bedi)

4

...................J. (J.M. Panchal)

New Delhi; April 22, 2009.