Page 1 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1149 OF 2013

Sanjeev ... Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

PRAFULLA C. PANT, J .

1.This appeal is directed against judgment and order

dated 24.5.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 827-DB of 2002 whereby

conviction and sentence recorded by the Additional Sessions

Judge (FTC), Sonepat against the appellant under Section

302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been affirmed.

Page 2 Page 2 of 16

2.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3.Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-9 Raj Singh,

resident of Village Hassanpur, had three brothers. Raj Pal @

Pale (deceased) was younger to him. All the four brothers

used to live separately. On 11.1.2000, Raj Singh had gone

to Sonepat with his brother Raj Pal for some personal work.

Raj Singh got held up in Sonepat, and Raj Pal left for the

Village. Later, he (Raj Singh) also proceeded from Sonepat.

At about 10.00 p.m., when Raj Singh on his way to Village

Hassanpur, alighted from three-wheeler, at G.T. Road

crossing, he noticed Sanjeev @ Gaja (appellant) with blood

stained clothes fleeing from the side of Government tubewell

towards Murthal bus stand. He (Raj Singh) could identify

Sanjeev in the headlights of the vehicles, but did not have an

idea that his brother (Raj Pal) had been murdered. After

meals he went to bed. In the next morning, Shakuntala (wife

of Raj Pal) came to him and told that Raj Pal had not reached

home. On this, a search was made by Raj Singh and his

Page 3 Page 3 of 16

another brother Ram Kumar regarding their missing brother.

At about 9.00 a.m., they reached near water supply tubewell

and noticed a man lying only with trousers. They went near

to see the person and realized that their brother Raj Pal has

been killed who was lying in the pool of blood. There were

wounds on the forehead, nose and eye brows of the body.

Shirt, sweater, slippers, etc. were lying at some distance.

Suspecting that Sanjeev @ Gaja might have killed or helped

someone killing Raj Pal, he went to the police post and gave

First Information Report (Ex. PG/1) on 12.1.2000 at 10.40

a.m.

4.PW-6 A.S.I. Jagat Singh recorded the above First

Information Report relating to offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC at Police Post, Sadar, Sonepat. Police team

headed by PW-14 S.I. Yashpal Singh with PW-8 H.C. Mahinder

Singh and Constable Rajeev Singh, along with informant,

proceeded towards the place where the dead body was

lying. The body of the deceased was taken into possession

and sealed. The inquest report (Ex. PE/2) was prepared.

Page 4 Page 4 of 16

Shirt, sweater, slippers, etc. and a blood stained brick were

also taken into possession by the police and a memorandum

was prepared. Sealed dead body of Raj Pal was handed over

to PW 8 H.C. Mahinder Singh, and sent for post mortem

examination through Constable Ramesh Kumar and Rajbir.

PW-11 S.I. Ram Chander took up investigation.

5.PW-3, Dr. Purnima Ahuja of Government Hospital,

conducted post mortem examination on the very day, i.e.,

12.1.2000, on the dead body of Raj Pal, with her colleague

Dr. R.N. Tehlan. Following ante-mortem injuries were

recorded by the team of medical officers who prepared

autopsy report (Ex PA/1/2000): -

“1.Multiple contusion of varying sizes 5 x 1 cm,

4x3, 2x1, 3x1, 3x1 and 1x1 cms, present on

whole of back about 10 to 12 in number. On

cut sections blood was found on the sub

coetaneous tissue.

2.Defused swelling was present on the front

and left side of chest of size 20x10 cms. On

examination crepitus was found. On

exploration, there was massive presence of

blood in the sub coetaneous tissue deep to

the chest wall and pericardium and pleura.

No. 3

rd

to 9

th

ribs were found fractured at

multiple paces. Left thoracic cavity was full

Page 5 Page 5 of 16

of blood (about 2 liters) left lung was badly

lacerated on right side. The 3

rd

and 6

th

ribs

were fractured medially and thoracic cavity

was full of blood. The lung was lacerated.

3.Lacerated wounds 5x2 cms present on the

middle of the forehead vertically placed.

Underlines bone was fractured. C.V. was

present.

4.Lacerated wound 3x2 cms. present on the

right side just above the right eye. C.V. was

present.

5.Defused swelling were present on the left

cheek 6x5 cms.

6.Defused swelling on the left eye.

7.Contusion 6x5 cms present on the back of

the left shoulder.”

It was opined by the two doctors, who conducted post

mortem examination, that the above mentioned ante

mortem injuries were sufficient to cause death.

6.Mean while, accused Sanjeev who had gone to

Government Hospital in the intervening night of 11.1.2000

and 12.1.2000, was also medically examined by PW-13, Dr.

C.P. Arora of General Hospital, Sonepat, at about 1.30 a.m.

(12.1.2000), and following injury was found on his person: -

Page 6 Page 6 of 16

“22 x 0.2 x 2 to 0.5 cm incised wound on the

posterior surface of the left fore-arm. It was

superficial in depth and skin deep only. There was

a corresponding cut on the shirt.”

7.After examination of the witnesses and on completion

of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted

charge sheet against accused Sanjeev (appellant) for his trial

in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The

forensic report regarding blood group of the blood stains

found on the clothes of accused and that of deceased was

also obtained. The case was committed by the Magistrate to

the Court of Sessions and necessary copies were provided to

the accused as required under Section 207 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. After hearing on charge, Sessions Judge

framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC

against accused Sanjeev on 23.5.2000 to which he pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.Thereafter, prosecution got examined fifteen witnesses,

namely, PW-1, A.S.I. Rajiv Kumar (witness of disclosure as to

the recovery of blood stained clothes of accused), PW-2,

Constable Mahesh Chander (in whose presence blood

Page 7 Page 7 of 16

stained clothes of the deceased were taken into possession

and recovery memo Ex. PB prepared), PW-3, Dr. Purnima

Ahuja (who conducted post mortem examination), PW-4,

Jaipal (who took photographs of dead body of Raj Pal before

the body was sealed), PW-5, Rampal Patwari (who prepared

site plan Ex.-PF), PW-6, A.S.I. Jagat Singh (who recorded the

First Information Report Ex.-PG/1), PW-7, Inspector Ram Kala

(who arrested the accused), PW-8, H.C. Mahinder Singh (to

whom the dead body was handed over after the same was

sealed), PW-9, Raj Singh (informant and brother of the

deceased), PW-10, Balwan Singh (another brother of the

deceased), PW-11, S.I. Ram Chander (who sent a letter Ex.-

PO/1 requesting the Government Hospital for post mortem

examination), PW-12, Om Prakash (witness of extra judicial

confession), PW-13, Dr. C.P. Arora (who examined the injury

on person of the accused), PW-14, S.I. Yashpal Singh (who

went to the place of incident along with other police officials

and informant, after First Information Report was registered,

and prepared the inquest report), and PW-15, Azad Singh

(another witness of extra judicial confession).

Page 8 Page 8 of 16

9.The oral and documentary evidence was put to the

accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code

on 16.1.2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, in response to

which the accused pleaded that the same was incorrect, and

stated that he was falsely implicated.

10.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,

Sonepat, after hearing the parties, found accused Sanjeev

guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC

and convicted him accordingly on 3.10.2002. The parties

were heard on sentence on 5.10.2002 and the convict

(Sanjeev) was sentenced to imprisonment for life and

directed to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of

fine he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a

period of two months.

11.Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.10.2002/

5.10.2002, the convict preferred appeal before the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was registered as

Criminal Appeal No. 827-DB of 2002. The High Court, after

Page 9 Page 9 of 16

hearing the parties, concurred with the view taken by the

trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal by

way of special leave.

12.Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that

it is a case of circumstantial evidence and no one has seen

the appellant committing the crime. It is further argued that

the circumstances shown by the prosecution in the present

case do not complete the chain, and the courts below have

erred in law in holding the appellant guilty of the charge of

murder. To appreciate above argument, we have to see the

circumstances which are brought on record against the

appellant. The prosecution has established following facts in

this case against the accused: -

i)PW-9, Raj Singh, informant, saw the accused

running away on 11.1.2000 at about 10.00 p.m. and

his clothes were stained with blood.

ii)On 12.1.2000, when PW-13, Dr. C.P. Chopra

medically examined the accused Sanjeev in the

Page 10 Page 10 of 16

wee hours, it was found that the accused had

suffered incised wound measuring 22 x 0.2 x 2 to

0.5 cm. on the posterior surface of left fore-arm,

and there was cut in the shirt. This witness (PW-

13) sent Ruka (memorandum) Ex. PP/1 to the in-

charge, Police Post, General Hospital (even before

F.I.R. was lodged).

iii)PW-12, Om Prakash, has stated that accused

Sanjeev disclosed him on 14.1.2000, that on

11.1.2000, he (accused) had altercation with Raj

Pal after consuming liquor whereafter he assaulted

the deceased with the brick.

iv)PW-1, A.S.I. Rajiv Kumar, and PW-7, Inspector Ram

Kala, have adduced the evidence that on 15.1.2000

on disclosure (Ex.-PA) from the accused Sanjeev,

his blood stained clothes which were concealed by

him in a wooden box in his house, were recovered.

Page 11 Page 11 of 16

v)From the forensic laboratory report, it is

established that same blood group was found in

the blood stained clothes recovered i.e. blood

group ‘O’.

13.The above circumstances, read together, make us

belief that it is only the appellant who could have caused

death of Raj Pal in the intervening night of 11.1.2000 and

12.1.2000. When the prosecution has successfully proved

that accused Sanjeev suffered the injury, as mentioned

above, almost at the same time when the deceased had

suffered the injuries, there should have been some

explanation on the record from the side of the defence as to

how he (accused) received the injury and went to

Government Hospital where his injury was recorded by PW-

13, Dr. C.P. Arora, before giving him medical treatment. In

absence thereof, the courts below had no reason to

disbelieve the evidence relating to above chain of

circumstances and they rightly recorded the finding that it

was accused Sanjeev only who could have caused death with

Page 12 Page 12 of 16

the knowledge that act committed by him is likely to result

in death of the person assaulted.

14.On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that there was

no motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of

Raj Pal, as such, in absence of motive, it cannot be said that

it was only the appellant who could have committed the

crime.

15.It is settled principle of law that, to establish

commission of murder by an accused, motive is not required

to be proved. Motive is something which prompts a man to

form an intention. The intention can be formed even at the

place of incident at the time of commission of crime. It is

only either intention or knowledge on the part of the accused

which is required to be seen in respect of the offence of

culpable homicide. In order to read either intention or

knowledge, the courts have to examine the circumstances,

as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of

mind of the accused.

Page 13 Page 13 of 16

16.In the present case, from the evidence of PW-12 Om

Prakash, it reflects that while making extra judicial

confession, the appellant narrated that after both he and Raj

Pal got drunk, they engaged into an altercation whereafter

scuffle took place, and the appellant caused injuries on the

forehead and chest of the deceased. This fact gets

corroborated from the statement of PW-13, Dr. C.P. Arora,

who recorded wound measuring 22 x 02 x 2 to .5 cm in the

medical report soon after the time of the incident, on the

person of the appellant.

17.Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC provides that culpable

homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre-

meditation 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.

Explanation to Exception 4 to the Section further provides

that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers

provocation or commits the first assault.

Page 14 Page 14 of 16

18.In our opinion, when the prosecution evidence relating

to extra judicial confession made before PW-12, Om Prakash,

is believed by the courts below to examine as to whether act

committed by the accused constitutes culpable homicide

amounting to murder or not, they should have read the

statement as a whole, and the circumstances, in which the

injuries were caused by the appellant to the deceased,

should not have been ignored. Having gone through the

evidence on record and considering the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the

act committed by the appellant in the present case is

covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, i.e., culpable

homicide not amounting to murder, as such the same is,

punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.

19.For the reasons, as discussed above, we are inclined to

partly interfere with the impugned orders. The conviction

and sentence recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the

High Court in respect of offence punishable under Section

302 IPC against the appellant, is set aside. Instead, the

Page 15 Page 15 of 16

appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part I, IPC and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years

and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which the appellant

shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of two

months. Amount of fine if deposited in compliance of orders

of courts below shall be treated to have been deposited in

compliance of direction of this Court as above. The

appellant is said to be in jail and he shall complete the

sentence, as awarded by this Court.

20.The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.

…………………………………… ..J.

[T.S. Thakur]

…………………………………… ..J.

[Rohinton Fali Nariman]

…………………………………… ..J.

[Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi;

February 19, 2015.

Page 16 Page 16 of 16