The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy in the case titled Kala Singh @ Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab dated 21-09-2021 reduces the sentence awarded to a man accused of killing a person for stealing pigeon.

Facts of the case:

It was alleged that the appellant and the deceased had a sudden fight as the deceased had stolen the pigeon of the appellant and in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, the co­accused (Kehar Singh) who had a rod with him, gave a blow with the rod on the right side of the head of the deceased resulting in his death. It was further alleged that, thereafter the appellant and co­accused have thrown the dead body of the deceased in the minor canal.

Submission of the Appellant:

The Appellant has submitted that the scuffle had taken place on the spur of the moment and that sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.   It was not a pre­meditated act and there was no intention at all to kill the deceased.

Trial Court’s Observation and Reasoning

The appellant and the co-accused were convicted by the Trial Court for the aforesaid offences and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment   for   life for the offence under Sections 302/34 IPC and three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 IPC, apart from the fine.

High Court’s Observation and Reasoning:

The High Court has modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to 304 Part­I IPC and imposed the sentence, of 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/­, on the appellant and co­accused for the offence under Section 304 Part­I of IPC.

Supreme Court’s Observation and Reasoning:

After listening to both the parties, the Supreme Court held:

"It is clear from the evidence on record that the scuffle had taken place on the spur of the moment and a sudden fight had taken place in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.  It was not a pre­meditated one and as there was no intention on the part of the appellant and co­accused either to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part­I IPC."
"In absence of any intention on the part of the appellant, it is a clear case where the conviction of the appellant is to be modified to one under Section 304 Part­II IPC by maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The appeals are allowed in part and the conviction of the appellant is modified from the one under Section 304 Part­I/34 IPC to the one under Section 304 Part­II/34 IPC.  The appellant is hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and the fine of Rs.10,000/­ imposed by the High Court is maintained."

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :