This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the a judgment and order dated 14.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.508-DB of 1999 affirming the conviction and sentence of the present appellant in respect of an offence under
Section 302 IPC.
According to the case of the prosecution, the family of the deceased Surjit Singh had a field adjacent to the agricultural field of the appellant and the
appellant had installed a thresher with electronic motor which emitted dust and finer particles which would settle in the field of the deceased causing
harm to the crops. On 13.05.1993, the deceased along with Pws 3 and 4 had been to the field for cutting fodder at which time the appellant along with
co-accused were operating the thresher. This led to a verbal altercation in which the side of the accused gave blows to the deceased and the
prosecution witnesses. The deceased received a single blow on the head which proved to be fatal.
According to Dr. Sat Pal, PW-1, who conducted the post-mortem examination, the following injury was found on the person of the deceased:
“1. 12 cm x 8 cm red colour contusion over the right parietal and temporal region of the skull. On dissection, the underlying haematoma was
present in the subcutaneous region. Underlying parietal and temporal bone were fractured (linear fracture). The dura underneath the fracture
underside lacerated. Blood and blood clots were present in the right cranial cavity. Blood and blood clots were also present at the level of medulla
oblongata and the medulla oblongata was lacerated. There was also fracture of the middle cranial fosssa (basel fracture)â€.
In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was injury to the brain which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed and four accused including the appellant were tried for the offences punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, by judgment and order dated 24.09.1999, passed in Sessions Case No.67/37 of 1993/1999, acquitted
accused Joginder Singh and Kulwinder Singh, but convicted the appellant and Balwinder Singh. The appellant was convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 302 IPC. In addition, he and Balwinder Singh were also convicted for offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 IPC
having caused injury to the prosecution witnesses.
Criminal Appeal No.508-DB of 1999 was preferred by the appellant and Balwinder Singh before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh. Balwinder Singh having died during the pendency of the appeal, the matter abated as against him. The High Court, by its judgment and
order dated 14.03.2008, affirmed the conviction and sentence as recorded by the Trial Court as against the appellant.
We have gone through the record and considered rival submissions.
From the material on record, it is clear that the assault in the present matter was not a pre-mediated one and it developed on the spur of the moment.
It is true that the blow of lathi given by the appellant landed on the vital part of the body of the deceased and proved fatal.
Having regard to the facts that the occurrence was not pre-mediated and developed on the spur of the moment and, secondly, that it was a single blow
case, we extend the benefit to the appellant and convert the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence him to suffer ten
years’ rigorous imprisonment.
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant was admitted to bail vide order dated 16.11.2010 passed by this Court. The order recorded that he
had completed six years, six months and two days of actual imprisonment. The appellant shall surrender within fifteen days from today to undergo the
remaining sentence. Upon surrender, the bail bonds shall stand cancelled. In case, the appellant fails to surrender, he shall immediately be taken in
custody, in which case the bail bonds shall stand forefeited. A copy of this order shall immediately be transmitted to the concerned Police Station for
compliance.
The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
