http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: RAM PRAKASH SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/02/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Nanavati, J.      The appellant  was convicted  by  the  Sessions  Court, Monghyr under  Section 302  IPC for committing the murder of one Ramswarath  Singh. His conviction has been upheld by the Patna High Court.      It is not necessary to refer to the prosecution case or to the evidence led by the prosecution to prove its case, as the learned  counsel for  the  appellant  has  confined  his submission to  the nature  of offence  which can  be said to have been committed by the appellant. The evidence on record discloses  that  accused  Ram  Prakash  Singh  and  deceased Ramswarath  Singh   were  friends.   As  a  result  of  some misunderstanding between  them their  relations  had  become strained. Deceased Ramswarath Singh used to tell others that Ram Prakash  Singh owed some money to him and was not paying the same.  On the day of the incident, that is on 29.6.1976, accused Ram  Prakash Singh  met Ramswarath  Singh  near  the Choraha of  Mauza, Tilak  Nagar. Ram  Prakash Singh enquired form  Ramswarath   Singh  as  to  why  he  is  unnecessarily maligning him.  That led  to a hot exchange of words between them. During  this altercation  Ram Prakash Singh took out a knife and gave one blow to Ramswarath Singh.      What is  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  is  that accused  Ram   Prakash  and   deceased  Ramswarath  had  met accidentally and  in a  sudden quarrel which had taken place between them,  both the  deceased and the accused had become very angry  and during the altercation that followed, in the heat of  passion, accused  Ram Prakash  had given  one knife blow. He  had not  tried to  give a  second blow even though Rameswarath had  not fallen  down. He further submitted that the doctor,  who was  examined in  this case,  has also  not stated that  the injury  which was  caused was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He, therefore, submitted that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is not proper and illegal.      We find considerable substance in the contention raised by the  learned counsel for the appellant. The fact that the accused and  the deceased  were  friends  and  were  working together in the credit investment bank opened by Ram Prakash

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Singh is  not in  dispute. The  fact that  a hot exchange of words took  place is  also deposed  by all  the  three  eye- witnesses. The  evidence further  shows that  only one knife blow was  given by  the appellant  without aiming  it at any particular part  of Ramswarath’s  body. The  doctor, who had performed the  post-mortem examination,  has not stated that the injury, which was caused to the deceased, was sufficient in the  ordinary course of nature to cause death. But of the sudden quarrel on that day there was no other reason for the appellant to  cause an  injury to  his friend. Therefore, in view of  the facts  and circumstances  of this  case it will have to be held that his conviction under Section 302 IPC is not proper and that he should have been convicted only under Section 304 II IPC.      We, therefore, partly allow this appeal. The conviction of the  appellant under  Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is convicted  under Section  304 Par II IPC. For substantial period, the  appellant had  remained in  jail,  both  as  an under-trial prisoner  and after  his  conviction.  From  the affidavit filed before this Court it appears that during the 21 years  which have  passed, the  appellant has been living peacefully and is not indulging in any unlawful activity. It further appear that he has been helpful to the people of his locality. On 11.9.198 he had risked his own life in order to apprehend the  robbers and  murderers  of  one  Shanker  Lal Bhartiya. He  has been  cooperating with  police. His act of bravery and  his co-operativeness  have been  appreciated by the  Superintendent  of  Police,  Begusarai,  by  issuing  a certificate to that effect.      Considering the  special facts  of this  case, we think that ends  of justice  would   be met  if the  appellant  is sentenced to imprisonment which he has already undergone and is directed  to pay  a fine  of   Rs. 10,000/-.  In  case of default of  payment of  fine, the  appellant  shall  undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.