In a recent significant judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and instead convicted the accused, Rajinder Singh, under Section 302 IPC for murder. The case, titled State of Haryana v. Rajinder Singh, was adjudicated by Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepthi Sharma. The case highlights critical issues regarding the interpretation of ‘grave and sudden provocation’ and the legal boundaries between culpable homicide and murder.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident on May 21, 2001, in Hisar, Haryana. Rajinder Singh, after an altercation over a trivial matter involving the refusal to provide a glass at a tea shop, attacked the deceased, Sehdev, with a broken beer bottle, inflicting fatal injuries. The prosecution’s case was based on the eyewitness testimonies of Vinod Kumar and Prem Singh, who recounted how Rajinder, provoked by the refusal, broke a beer bottle and delivered two blows to Sehdev’s neck, leading to his death.
The trial court had convicted Rajinder Singh under Section 304-I IPC, concluding that the provocation was grave and sudden enough to reduce the crime from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Rajinder Singh was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal question in this appeal revolved around whether the act of the accused could be justified under the exception of ‘grave and sudden provocation’ as outlined in Section 300 IPC, which differentiates between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The State of Haryana challenged the trial court’s decision, arguing that the repeated blows and the nature of the injuries inflicted showed clear intent to cause death, which should be classified as murder under Section 302 IPC.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench of the High Court meticulously analyzed the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the post-mortem report, and the forensic evidence. The court found that the injuries inflicted on Sehdev were on vital parts of his body and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The court emphasized that the provocation, though sudden, did not justify the extreme reaction by Rajinder Singh.
The court observed, “The accused had caused serious injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, indicating a clear intention to cause death, which cannot be downgraded to a lesser offence under Section 304-I IPCโ. The court further noted that the defence failed to prove that the act fell within any of the exceptions that would reduce the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In conclusion, the High Court set aside the conviction under Section 304-I IPC and convicted Rajinder Singh under Section 302 IPC. The bench stated, “Provocation, even if grave and sudden, does not absolve an individual from the consequences of their actions when such actions indicate a clear intent to kill.”
Also Read
The High Court directed that Rajinder Singh be produced before the court on August 21, 2024, for sentencing, considering the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Representation
The State of Haryana was represented by Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, while Mr. Balraj Singh Dhull, Advocate, appeared for Rajinder Singh. The case was a part of the criminal appeal number CRA-D-393-DBA-2004 and CRA-S-1029-SB-2003, which were adjudicated together given their interlinked nature.
