SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Surinder Singh alongwith his brother Balwinder Singh was charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC for having caused death of their brother Harjinder Singh. After trial, Balwinder Singh was acquitted, whereas Surinder Singh is held guilty for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/- with direction to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in case of default of payment of fine. Sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- was also awarded for his conviction under Section 323 IPC with similar amount of sentence in case he defaulted in paying the fine. Fine was to be paid to Harvinder Kaur widow of the deceased. Surinder Singh is now in appeal before this, court.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story, appellant Surinder Singh and his two other brothers were residing in different rooms of a house having common court-yard in village Gandhran. Deceased Harjinder Singh was working as a Mason at Nakodar. On 18.8.1992, while deceased was away to his work, his brothers Surinder Singh (appellant) and Balwinder Singh abused his wife Harvinder Kaur. When Harjinder Singh returned to his house on 21.8.1992, his wife informed him about she having been abused by his brothers. He accordingly questioned his brothers in this regard and this led to a fight between them. It is alleged that Balwinder Singh had thrown his brother Harjinder Singh on the ground, whereas Surinder Singh gave a blow on his fore-head with the iron pipe lying in the house. Deceased Harjinder Singh started reeling in pain. His wife Harvinder Kaur stepped forward to rescue him when appellant Surinder Singh gave her two blows with the iron pipe. The wife and daughter Parvinder Kaur aged 12/13 years, raised alarm when Surinder Singh and Balwinder Singh ran away carrying the iron pipe with them. Kabal Singh Namberdar of the village came to the place hearing the alarm and arranged conveyance and carried injured Harjinder Singh and his wife to Civil Hospital, Nakodar. Harjinder Singh died in the hospital. On the statement made by injured Harvinder Kaur, after being declared fit to do so, FIR against appellant Surinder Singh and Balwinder Singh was registered. Investigation followed and after completion thereof, Surinder Singh and Balwinder Singh were put to trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC. During the course of investigation, appellant Surinder Singh suffered a disclosure statement leading to recovery of an iron pipe, which was hidden in Sarkandas near the railway line in the area of village Gandhran. Appellant was also charged for an offence under Section 323 IPC for causing injuries to Harvinder Kaur. Balwinder Singh was charged for the said offences with the aid of Section 34 IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant has raised only a legal argument and has not otherwise challenged the findings on merits. He would say that this is a case, which would not reveal any intention on the part of the appellant either to cause the death or to cause any Injury, which was likely to cause death. As per the counsel, appellant could only be attributed knowledge that his act was likely to cause death without there being any intention on his part and accordingly the offence proved would be covered under Section 304 Part-II IPC. To appreciate the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, the distinction between Part-I and Part-II of Section 304 is required to be understood. This distinction is rather a fine one. Part-I applies where there is guilty intention and Part-II where there is no such intention, but there is guilty knowledge. The difference between the two parts of the section is that under the 1st part, the offence of murder is first established and the accused is given the benefit of the exceptions under Section 300 while under the second part, the offence of murder is not established at all. The right approach to a case of culpable homicide is first to find out if the offence falls under any of the four Clauses of Section 300. If it is so found, then the court is to see if the case is covered by any of the exceptions to the section. The offence, if covered by any of the exceptions to this section, would be punishable under Section 304 Part-I and if not, it would be a murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. On the other hand, if it is found that the requirements of Section 300 are not fulfilled and the offence also does not fall under one of the four Clauses, then court is required to see if it was with one of the intentions mentioned in Part-I or only with the knowledge as described in Part-II. In short, if there is only a knowledge of likelihood to cause death, but no intention to do so, then the offence committed would be under Section 304 Part-II. Though in some cases, an act of inflicting a solitary blow on the person of the deceased on spur of moment, was held to fall in the first part of Section 304, yet a question whether the offender had any intention to cause death is always a question of fact depending upon the circumstances of a particular case. Such intention or knowledge can basically be inferred from the expression used by the offender; weapon used; number and nature of injuries inflicted and deliberation gone into by the offender at the time of committing the act.