criminal 2 final

by Pragati Mandloi

Submission date: 05-Mar-2020 06:39PM (UTC+0530)

Submission ID: 1269798609
File name: criminal_2_final.docx (66.28K)
Word count: 2160
Character count: 11370
 NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE
UNIVERSITY
BHOPAL

CRIMINAL - II

PROJECT

CASE ANALYSIS

SURAIN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

VI TRIMESTER

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

PROF. DIVYA SALIM PRAGATI MANDLOI (2018 B.A.LL.B.08)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE ....................................................................................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...................................................................

OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................

MATERIAL FACTS ...........................................................................

ARGUMENTS FROM APPELANTS .................................................

ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT .............................................

INTERPRETATION OF LAW ...........................................................

JUDGEMENT....................................................................................

PUNISHMENT ..................................................................................

ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION .............................................................
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that case anal ysis of surnin singh v. state of punjab has been

prepared and submitted to Pmf. Divya Salim by the student who is currently pursuing her

B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) at National Law Institute University, Bhopal in fulfil rnent of CRIMINAL

LAW 1. lt is also certified that this is their oriflinai research pmject and this project has not

been submitted to any other University, nor published in any journal .

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1 extend my sincere gratitude to everyone who helped rue with the project. 1 am very thanWul

towards our CRlM INAL LAW 1 teacher, Prof. DIV YA SALlM, who has been a wonderful

mentor and been a consent support throughout. 1 am also thankful to the Library

Administration for the provision of necessary books and texts needed for the completion of this

project. Finally, 1 would like to thank my classmates and seniors for all their guidance.

lt would not have been possible without the kind support and help of aforementioned

individuals and organizations. 1 would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

Pragati mandloi
 OBJECTIVES

• To learn to make out the material facts out of a judgement.

• To analyse the arguments from both the sides, i.e. respondent and the petitioner.

• To find the interpretation of law as given by the court.

• To criticall y analyse the judgement in the said case.

 MATERIAL FACTS

• There was dispute between the parties —the complainant and his relatives on one side
and mused persons on the other side regarding their turn of irrigating their fields.
• Both the parties had come to the court of Executive Magistrate, Faridkot in order to
tend the proceedings.
• Both the sides started quarrelling and had a heated exchange of words as the appellant-
mused objected to the presence of one of the relative of the complainant.
• The appellant-accused, took out his Kirpan and gave a blow to the relative
• The complainant party tried to stop the appellant-accused, gave a kirpan blow to other
relative and also assaulted the deceased- I with Kirpan.
• The another relative also took on is Kirpan and started giving blows to the deceased-2.
• A First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Police Station, Faridkot by
the complaint under Sections 302, 3O7, 324, 326, 145, 149 of the IPC.
• Learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant-accused under Sections
302, 307 and 324 of the IPC .
 Issues
whether the appellant-accused has made out a case for conviction under Section 304 Part
11 rather than of Section 302 of IPC ‘?
Difference between grave & sudden provocation and heat of passion.
What is meant by prerneditation.
Was the act of the accused fall under “acting in cruel manner” under exception IV of
section 300 of IPC.
 Arguments from Appellant
Appellants put foru ard the foil owing arguments in front of the Hon’ble S›uprerne Court.
The appellant had at en inf icted i i• ries and acted in se I i defense.
Both the parties had come to the spot to attend the court pmceedings. Apparently, none of the
parties had come to the spot with an intention to cam ini• ries to each. The result or the act
was I mm sudden quarrel.
The act was not premeditated und there was no undue advantage taken.
The appellant has not acted in cruel munner.

Arguments l’rom Respondent

The position or armed used by accessed clearly shows that there was clear intention to kill.
The appellant has tuken undue advantage and acted in cruel manner.
 Interpretation of law

According to point or considerations in the case, the court went thmugh section 3()()’ - murder und its
exception .

The ingredients of the exceptions to be necessarily present. Exception 4 of section 3(X) applies in
the absence of any premeditation. The exception contemplates that the sudden fight shall start upnn
the heat nf passion nn a sudden quarrel. The excepts 4 of section 30U cnvers acts dnne in a
sudden fight. The exception I and exception 4 of section 3() ) tnunded upnn the same principle,
fnr both their should be absence nd premeditutinn. But in exception 4 there is heat nt” passion where as
in exception I at section
() there is tots depri vation of eelI contml.
Exception 4 deals with situations in which, although a blow may have been struck, or some
provocation given at the root of the conflict or in whatever manner the 9uarrel may have arisen,
the subse t uent con duct of th parties places them on an equal footing with respect to guilt.
The sudden tight implies
mutuuJ provocation, nor could in such cases the whole blame be placed on one side where as exception 1
i s not deliberated or determined to fi ght. For instance if one of them initiates the fight, but the other had
not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not tuken the series turn it did.

It there is mutual prnvocatinn and aggravatinn it is difficult tn apportion the share nt blame
which attaches tn each tighter. The help nd exception 4 can be invoked ifi the death is caused
it the act is not premeditated, such quarr no undue advantage taken, the tight must have been
with person killed. Exception 4 also requires heat nt passion, which
meuns that there is nn time to cc›nI down is not sufficient to only show sudden quarrel and
absence ot premeditation, but is Neo importat that the
of fender has nnt taken undue advantage nr not act in cruel manner.

@ cz se at STATE CiF A â'. ve. RAYAV ARA PU PU N NAYY A AND

the court made
ANO"IHkR, 2
distinction between section 302 and section 304 and held as:

Cut pable homicide is genus and murder its specie. Culpable homicide sans special characteristics of
murder is culpable homicide ixit amounting to murder. The punishment is fixed according to the
gravity of generic offence. The code practically recognizes 3 degree of culpable homicide. First as
mum-
deii ned under section 3()() und punished under section 3t)2. This the greatest iorm or homicide. Second
degree is punishable under first part of section 304. The third degree is punishable under second part of
section 3()4.

So it emerges that whenever a cnurt contents with the question whether the offence is murder or is
culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the
problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the fi rst stage would be, whether the accused has
done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the
act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused

Indian penal code, igso

19 7 7 AIR 45, 197 7 SCR (1) 601
amounts to “culpable homicide” as defined in Section 299.3 If the answer to the present question is clear
found within the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 of the penal oode , is
reached. this is ofien the stage at which the oourt should determine whether the facts proved by the
prosecution hring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of ‘Gurder” contained
in Section 300.

If answer of question is within the negative, the offence would be “culpable homicide not amounting to
murder”, punishable under first or the second a part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether
the seoond or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable.‘ If this question is found within the positive,
but the case oomes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be
“culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, punishable under fast of Section 304, of the penal code.”

In case or BUDHI SINGH vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH’, the court held that

The dc'ctrine of’ sudden and grave provocation is incapable o1’ rigid construction resulting in or stating any
principle ct’ universal application. This can always must depend upon the 1’acts ct’ a given ease. While applying
this principle, the first obligation ct’ the court is to look at from the purpose ct’ view ct an individual ct’ reasonable
prudence i’1 there was such grave and sudden provocation so un reasonably conclude that it had been jx›ssible to
commit the o1’1’enee ct’culpable homicide, and as per the 1’acts , wasn’t a culpable homicide amounting to
murder. An o1’1’ence resulting from grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that an individual
placed in such circumstances could lc›se sell’-control but only tem{x›rarily which t‹x›, in proximity to the time of’
provc›cation. The prnvc›cation might be an act or series ct’ acts done by the deceased to the accused leading to
inl4ictin g ct’ injury.

id it is also noted that the behavior of the assailant was that of a reasonable person . There is fine distinction
between sudden@d grave provocation and temporary loss of self control and one which inspires an actual intention
to kill. If‘ the act is premeditated with intention to kill, it will not tall under the scope of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.

In case of KIKAR SINGH vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN‘, court held that

To attract exception 4 of section 300 all the conditions enumerated therein must be satisfied.

• The act must be committed

• without premeditation in sudden fight in the heat of passion
• upon a sudden quarrel
• without offender takin ¿c undue advantage
• without the accused actin ¿c in cruel manner .’

There must be a mutual combats or exchanging blows on e other. And however slight the first blow, or
provocation, every fresh blow becomes a fresh provocation. It matters not what the cause of the quarrel is,
whether real or imaginary, or who draws or strips first. The strike of the blow must be without any
intention to kill or seriously injure the other. he number of wounds is i+ct the criterion, but the position of the

Indian pen al code,1860

^ Virsa Sing;h v. Th e State of Punjab,
5 y{j{j{j CriM 4879
^ 1990 (2) WLN 482
Tliak ar d a Lata J i v. State of Gujarat
The occa@n for sudden quarrel must not only be sudden but should also be on equal footing in point of
defence. This is specially so where the attack is made with dangerous weapons. Where the deceased was
unarmed and did not cause any injury to the accused even following a sudden quarrel if the accused has
inflicted fatal blows on the deoeased, Exoeption 4 is not attracted and commission must be one of murder
punishable under Section 302.

Thus, if there is intent and knowledge then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I and if it is only a
case of knowledge and not intention to cause murder and tx›dil y injury then the same would fall under
Section 304 Part II.

Judgment
Considen ng the factual soenano the case on hand, the inevitable cone fusion made was the appellant
accused did not acted in c rtiel manner and did not take undue advantage of the deoeased. The scuffle t‹x›k
plaoe i n the heat of passion and all the requirement under section 300 exoeption 4 have been satisfied.
Therefore the benefit of exception 4 under section 300 would be entitled to appellant accused.

Punishment: n accordance of cone I is on the appellant accused would be conv cted under sect on 304 part
II nstead of sect on 302 w th n pr sonn ent of IO y'ears.
 ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION

Section 3U0 defines murder. Section 299 deijnes culpable homicide. Exception enumerated in 300 the
offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under section 3()4.

The distinction between section 3(J2 md section 3(J4 makes it clear that the punishment of the offence
should be pmportionate to the gravity of the otfence.

For the purpose or attracting exception 4 or section 3(1(1, the act should be without premeditation, should
be in sudden quarrel, the oflender should not act in cruel manner or shout ot undue advantage. li the act
i s premeditated or lf the offender tuke undue advantage r›t the occasion or if the fight is unpremeditated and
sudden, yet if the instrument or manner of retaliation be greatly disproportionate to the offenoe given, and
cruel and dangerous in its nature, the accused cannot be protected under Exception 4.

1 agree with the courts decision, as in the present case satisfies all the ingredient of exception 4 r›t section
3()() or IPC and it would be uniiiir to convict the appellant accessed under section 3()2 as the accessed did
not behaved in cruel manner nor has taken an undue advantage.
criminal 2 final
ORIGINALITY REPORT

27 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
18%
INTERNET SOURCES
0%
PUBLICATIONS
9%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

www.sclt.in
1 Internet Source 9%
www.lawnotes.in
2
Internet Source 2%
www.scribd.com
3
Internet Source 3%
www.du.ac.in
4
Internet Source 2%
Submitted to National Law School of India
5
University, Bangalore 2%
Student Paper

www.delhilawacademy.com
6
Internet Source 2%
imsnoida.com
7
Internet Source 1%
Submitted to Symbiosis International University
8
Student Paper 1%
9 es.scribd.com
 Internet Source

1%
10
www.scdecision.in
Internet Source 1%
11
Submitted to The WB National University of
Juridical Sciences 1%
Student Paper

adhrit.in
12 Internet Source 1%

Exclude quotes On Exclude matches < 14 words

Exclude bibliography On