1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL  APPEAL  NO. 2063   OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4943/2007)

CHHOTU APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and  

order dated 23.01.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab  

and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.489-DB of  

1999.  

The appellant along with the co-accused Bhallu was  

convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the  

I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay  

a fine of Rs.2,000/- by the Additional Sessions Judge,  

Hissar. The High Court while setting aside the conviction  

of the co-accused Bhallu, affirmed the conviction of the  

appellant  herein.  This  Court  while  entertaining  the  

special leave petition of the appellant, issued notice  

confined to the question of the nature of the offence.

2

Dr. Daya Nand (PW-1), who conducted the post-mortem  

examination  on  the  body  of  the  deceased  Dilbagh  has  

opined as follows:

“There was no external mark of injuries over  

the body except a diffused swelling over left  

temporal  region.  On  cut  section  of  this  

echymosis  was  present  in  the  skin  and  sub-

cutaneous  tissues.  On  further  dissection  on  

removing the scalp haemotoma was present under  

the scalp in left temporal, left parietal and  

right  temporal  region.  After  removing  this  

haemotoma skull bone was seen and there was  

fracture on left temporal bone. Infiltration  

of  the  blood  was  present  at  the  fractured  

ends. After removing the skull there was extra  

dural haemotoma was found lying in whole of  

the  temporal  region  and  parietal  region  of  

left side.“

Admittedly, this was the only one injury found on  

the body of the deceased. This injury was attributed to  

the appellant.   

In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are  

of  the  considered  view  that  the  conviction  of  the  

appellant under Section 302/34 I.P.C. is inappropriate.  

In our considered view, the ends of justice would be met  

if  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  is  altered  from  

Section 302/34 I.P.C. to one under Section 304 Part II of

3

the  I.P.C.  and  he  is  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for ten years.  

Accordingly  the  impugned  judgment  passed  by  the  

High Court is set aside and the appellant is convicted  

under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.  

The  appeal  is  partly  allowed  and  disposed  of  

accordingly.   

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi; November 9, 2009.