Case: Manke Ram Vs. State of Haryana

The incident which gives rise to this appeal took place on 17th of November, 1993 at the residential part of the appellants quarters in Sangatpura where the appellant wasof the Police Post. At about 9.30 p.m. on that day, the appellant came back from his duty at that time it is stated that Suraj Mal the deceased who was a Head Constable in the Sangatpura Police Outpost was standing near the quarters of appellant in the company of his nephewOn seeing them the appellant invited the deceased for a drink in his room. Therefore, the deceased went with the appellant to his room leavingoutside. It is an admitted case that while appellant and Suraj Mal were drinking in his room at about 9.45 p.m.Raj Pal went into the room and asked Suraj Mal to get up so that they could have their dinner. Suraj Mal acceded to this request, because of which the appellant get annoyed and abused the deceased in filthy language to which the deceased objected, which further annoyed the appellant and he picking his service revolver fired two shots at Suraj Mal, hitting him on the right side of the neck and left side of his thigh. The prosecution case further proceeds by stating that the two of them grappled with each other and came outside the room. On hearing the sound of gun shots,Constable Hari Ram and Ram Kumar, came rushing out andthe accused and snatched the weapon. Soon after Suraj Mal succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. It is further stated that on receiving a wireless message at Police Station, Kaithal,Inspector Sube Singh accompanied by a police party reached Police Post at Sangatpura and recorded the statement of(Raj Pal) at 11.50 p.m., and registered the FIR at 12.15 a.m., on November 18, 1993 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation was charged for the above said offences before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal who after trial came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established its charge against the appellant, hence, convicted him for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for two months. He further sentenced the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and to pay a fine of Rs.in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for one month and directed the substantive sentences to run concurrently.2. In appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has confirmed the said judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge by dismissing the appeal.3. It is consequent to the said judgment of the High Court, the appellant is before us in this criminal appeal.

Reasoning: 6. Having perused the material on record and considering the arguments of the parties, we are inclined to agree with the argument addressed on behalf of the appellant. There is no doubt that Suraj Mal met a homicidal death on 17.11.1993 at Sangatpura Police Outpost consequent to gun shot fired by the appellant.The question, for our consideration, is whether this action of appellant which caused the death of Suraj Mal would amount to murder or culpable homicide not amounting tomurder. It is an admitted fact that there was no enmity between the appellant and the deceased and a few days before the incident in question the appellant was promoted to the rank of Assistantof Police and he was putof Sangatpura Police Station wherein the deceased was also posted as Head Constable. It is also the case of the prosecution itself that on the fatal day when the appellant came back from the duty to his quarter he invited the deceased to his room to have a drink which was accepted by the deceased and both of them were drinking in the room of the appellant. It is at that point of timewho happened to be the nephew of the deceased came into the room and interrupted their drinking session by asking his uncle to get up and join him for dinner which was obviously not liked by the appellant who being offended by said interruption started abusing in a language which was not to the liking of the deceased who protested against such abuses. It is also the prosecution case that it is sequel to this interruption ofa physical fight started between the appellant and the deceased in which, of course, the appellant used his service revolver causing fatal injuries. Whilestates that there was no physical fight between the deceased and the appellant, the appellant contends that there was such physical fight in which he was sought to be strangulated by the deceased because of which he used the service revolver to protect himself. The fact that there was a physical fight between the deceased and the appellant, though not admitted bythe same cannot be denied because it has come in the evidence ofand 9 that when they came to the spot the appellant and the deceased were grappling outside the room and theythe accused and snatched the weapon. In such circumstances, we will have to examine the prosecution evidence whether the appellant had taken an undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner so as to deprive him of the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300. As noted above, there is no motive for killing the deceased. The drinking session in the room of the appellant was by mutual consent and admittedly the fight started because of the intervention ofFrom these circumstances, it can be very clearly held that the the incident in question took place in a sudden fight in the heat of passion. Thenext question, therefore, for our consideration, is whether the appellant did take an undue advantage of the said fight or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.Keeping the fact that both the appellant and the deceased had consumed considerable amount of alcohol which is established from the evidence of the doctor and the service revolver being next to the place where the fight took place and was not kept there by a planned act by the appellant, it cannot be altogether ruled out that the shots were fired not with an intention of taking any undue advantage by the appellant. It is probable that in an inebriated condition the appellant used the service revolver because of the physical fight between the two. We do not think the two courts below have properly appreciated this aspect of the prosecution case when it found the appellant guilty of murder and punished him under Section 302 IPC. Having considered the material on record, we are of the opinion that the appellant could only be found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II.