SANJEEV versus STATE OF HARYANA
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 210, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 210 
SANJEEV 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1149 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 19, 2015 
[T.S. THAKUR, ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN 
AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 Part I - Culpable homicide 
not amounting to murder- Prosecution case that the accused 
C had altercation with the victim after consuming liquor 
whereafter he assaulted the victim, resulting in death of victim 
- Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by courts below - On 
appeal held: In view of the evidence relating to the chain of 
circumstances, extra judicial confession made by the 
D accused to the prosecution witness which fact got 
corroborated from the statement of the doctor, act committed 
by the accused is covered by exception 4 to s.300 and is 
punishable uls. 304 Part I - Thus, conviction and sentence 
E u!s. 302 modified to one uls. 304 Part I and sentenced to ten 
years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50001-. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The circumstances established by the 
prosecution against the appellant read together, makes 
F 
it clear that it is only the appellant who could have caused 
death of 'RP' in the intervening night. When the 
prosecution successfully proved that accused suffered 
the injury almost at the same time when the deceased 
had suffered the injuries, there should have been some 
G explanation on the record from the side of the defence 
as to how he (accused) received the injury and went to 
Government Hospital where his
injury was recorded by 
PW-13-doctor before giving him medical treatment. In 
H 
210
SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA 
211 
absence thereof, the courts below had no reason to A 
disbelieve the evidence relating to chain of 
circumstances and they rightly recorded the finding that 
it was accused only who could have caused death with 
the knowledge that act committed by him is likely to 
result in death of the person assaulted. In order to read B 
either intention or knowledge to commit the crime, the 
courts have to examine the circumstances, as there 
cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of 
the accused. From the evidence of PW-12, it reflects that 
while making extra judicial confession, the appellant c 
narrated that after both he and the deceased got drunk, 
they engaged into an altercation whereafter scuffle took 
place, and the appellant caused injuries on the forehead 
and chest of the deceased which fact got corroborated 
from the statement of PW-13. [Para 13, 15, 16] [217-G-H; o 
218-A-B, D-E] 
1.2 When the prosecution evidence relating to extra 
judicial confession made before PW-12 is believed by 
the courts below to examine as to whether act committed 
by the accused constitutes culpable homicide E 
amounting to murder or not, they should have read the 
statement as a whole, and the circumstances, in which 
the injuries were caused by the appellant to the 
deceased, should not have been ignored. Having gone 
through the evidence on record and the submissions, F 
the act committed by the appellant is covered by 
Exception 4 to s. 300
IPC, i.e., culpable homicide not 
amounting to murder, as such the same is, punishable 
u/s. 304 Part I. The conviction and sentence recorded 
by the courts below under Section 302 IPC against the G 
appellant, is set aside. [Para 18, 19] [219-8-F] 
' CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 1149 of2013 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2011 of the 
H
212 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal 
No. 827-DB of 2002 
8 
J.P. Tiwari, Sanjeev Bansal, Praksh Kumar Singh for the 
Appellant. 
Nupur Choudhary (for Kamal Mohan Gupta) for the 
Respondent. 
The .Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed 
against judgment and order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 827-
08 of 2002 whereby conviction and sentence recorded by the 
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sonepat against the 
0 appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) has 
been affirmed. 
2. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the record. 
E 
3. 
Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-9 Raj Singh, 
resident of Village Hassanpur, had three brothers. Raj Pal@ 
Pale (deceased) was younger to him. All the four brothers used 
to live separately. On 11.1.2000, Raj Singh had gone to 
Sonepat with his brother Raj Pal for some personal work. Raj 
F Singh got held up in Sonepat, and Raj Pal left for the Village. 
Later, he (Raj Singh) also proceeded from Sonepat. At about 
10.00 p.m., when Raj Singh on his way to Village Hassanpur, 
alighted from three-wheeler, at G.T. Road crossing, he noticed 
Sanjeev@ Gaja (appellant) with blood stained clothes fleeing 
G from the side of Government tubewell towards Murtha! bus 
stand. He (Raj Singh) could identify Sanjeev in the headlights 
of the
vehicles, but did not have an idea that his brother (Raj 
Pal) had been murdered. After meals he went to bed. In the 
next morning, Shakuntala (wife of Raj Pal) came to him and 
H told that Raj Pal had not reached home. On this, a search was
SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.) 
213 
made by Raj Singh and his another brother Ram Kumar A 
regarding their missing brother. At about 9.00 a.m., they 
reached near water supply tubewell and noticed a man lying 
only with trousers. They went near to see the person and 
realized that their brother Raj Pal has been killed who was 
lying in the pool of blood. There were wounds on the forehead, 
B 
nose and eye brows of the body. Shirt, sweater, slippers, etc. 
were lying at some distance. Suspecting that Sanjeev@ Gaja 
might have killed or helped someone killing Raj Pal, he went 
to the police post and gave First Information Report (Ex. PG/ 
1)on12.1.2000at10.40a.m. 
c 
4. 
PW-6 AS.I. Jagat Singh recorded the above First 
Information Report relating to offence punishable under Section 
302 IPC at Police Post, Sadar, Sonepat. Police team headed 
by PW-14 S.I. Yashpal Singh with PW-8 H.C. Mahinder Singh 
and Constable Rajeev Singh, along with informant, proceeded 
D 
towards the place where the dead body was lying. The body 
of the deceased was taken into possession and sealed. The 
inquest report (Ex. PE/2) was prepared. Shirt, sweater, 
slippers, etc. and a blood stained brick were also taken into 
possession by the police and a memorandum was prepared. 
E 
Sealed dead body of Raj Pal was handed over to PW 8 H.C. 
Mahinder Singh, and sent for post mortem examination through 
Constable Ramesh Kumar and Rajbir. PW-11 S.I. Ram 
Chander took up investigation.
5. 
PW-3, Dr. Purnima Ahuja of Government Hospital, 
conducted post mortem examination on the very day, i.e., 
12.1.2000, on the dead body of Raj Pal, with her colleague 
F 
Dr. R.N. Tehlan. Following ante-mortem injuries were 
recorded by the team of medical officers who prepared G 
autopsy report (Ex PA/1 /2000): -
" 1. Multiple contusion of varying sizes 5 x 1 cm, 4x3, 
2x1, 3x1, 3x1 and 1 x1 ems, present on whole of back 
about 1 Oto 12 in number. On cut sections blood was 
found on the sub coetaneous tissue. 
H
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Defused swelling was present on the front and left 
side of chest of size 20x10 ems. On examination 
crepitus was found. On exploration, there was 
massive presence of blood in the sub coetaneous 
tissue deep to the chest wall and pericardium and 
B 
pleura. No. 3rd to 9th ribs were found fractured at 
multiple paces. Left thoracic cavity was full of blood 
(about 2 liters) left lung was badly lacerated on right 
side. The 3rd and 5th ribs were fractured medially and 
thoracic cavity was full of blood. The lung was 
C 
lacerated. 
D 
E 
3. Lacerated wounds 5x2 ems present on the middle 
of the forehead vertically placed. Underlines bone was 
fractured. C.V. was present. 
4. Lacerated wound 3x2 ems. present on the right side 
just above the right eye. C.V. was present. 
.,.-
5. Defused swelling were present on the left cheek 
6x5cms. 
6. Defused swelling on the left eye. 
7. Contusion 6x5 ems present on the back of the left 
shoulder." 
F 
It was opined by the two doctors, who conducted post 
mortem examination, that the above mentioned ante mortem 
injuries were sufficient to cause death. 
6. 
Mean while, accused Sanjeev who had gone to 
G Government Hospital in the intervening night of 11.1.2000 and 
12.1.2000, was also medically examined by PW-13, Dr. C.P. 
Arora of General Hospital, Sonepat, at about 1.30 a.m. 
(12.1.2000), and following injury was found on his person: -
"22 x 0.2 x 2 to 0.5 cm incised wound on the
posterior 
H 
surface of the left fore-arm. It was superficial in depth
SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA 
215 
[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
and skin deep only. There was a corresponding cut 
A 
on the shirt." 
7. 
After examination of the witnesses and on completion 
of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge 
sheet against accused Sanjeev (appellant) for his trial in 
8 
respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The 
forensic report regarding blood group of the blood stains found 
on the clothes of accused and that of deceased was also 
obtained. The case was committed by the Magistrate to the 
Court of Sessions and necessary copies were provided to C 
the accused as required under Section 207 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code. After hearing on charge, Sessions Judge 
framed charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC 
against accused Sanjeev on 23.5.2000 to which he pleaded 
not guilty and claimed to be tried. 
D 
8. 
Thereafter, prosecution got examined fifteen 
witnesses, namely, PW-1, AS.I. Rajiv Kumar (witness of 
disclosure as to the recovery of blood stained clothes of 
accused), PW-2, Constable Mahesh Chander (in whose 
presence blood stained clothes of the deceased were taken 
E 
into possession and recovery memo Ex. PB prepared), PW-
3, Dr. Purnima Ahuja (who conducted post mortem 
examination), PW-4, Jaipal (who took photographs of dead 
body of Raj Pal before the body was sealed), PW-5, Rampal 
Patwari (who prepared site plan Ex.-PF), PW-6, AS.I. Jagat F 
Singh (who recorded the First Information Report
Ex.-PG/1 ), 
PW-7, Inspector Ram Kala (who arrested the accused), PW-
8, H.C. Mahinder Singh (to whom the dead body was handed 
over after the same was sealed), PW-9, Raj Singh (informant 
and brother of the deceased), PW-10, Balwan Singh (another G 
brother of the deceased), PW-11, S.I. Ram Chander (who sent 
a letter Ex.-P0/1 requesting the Government Hospital for post 
mortem examination), PW-12, Om Prakash (witness of extra 
judicial confession), PW-13, Dr. C.P. Arora (who examined the 
injury on person of the accused), PW-14, S.I. Yashpal Singh 
H
216 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A (who went to the place of incident along with other police 
officials and informant, after First Information Report was 
registered, and prepared the inquest report), and PW-15, Azad 
Singh (another witness of extra judicial confession). 
9. 
The oral and documentary evidence was put to the 
8 accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code 
on 16.1.2000 by the learned Sessions Judge, in response to 
which the accused pleaded that the same was incorrect, and 
stated that he was falsely implicated. 
C 
10. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 
Sonepat, after hearing the parties, found accused Sanjeev 
guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC 
and convicted him accordingly on 3.10.2002. The parties were 
heard on sentence on 5.10.2002 and the convict (Sanjeev) 
D was sentenced to imprisonment for life and directed to pay 
fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine he was directed 
to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. 
11. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 
E 3.10.2002/ 5.10.2002, the convict preferred appeal before the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was registered as 
Criminal Appeal No. 827-DB of 2002. The High Court, after 
hearing the parties, concurred with the view taken by the trial 
court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this appeal by way of 
F special leave. 
12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us 
that it is a case of
circumstantial evidence and no one has 
seen the appellant committing the crime. It is further argued 
that the circumstances shown by the prosecution in the present 
G case do not complete the chain, and the courts below have 
erred in law in holding the appellant guilty of the charge of 
murder. To appreciate above argument, we have to see the 
circumstances which are brought on record against the 
appellant. The prosecution has established following facts in 
H this case against the accused: -
SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
217 
i) 
PW-9, Raj Singh, informant, saw the accused running 
A 
away on 11.1.2000 at about 10.00 p.m. and his 
clothes were stained with blood. 
ii) 
On 12.1.2000, when PW-13, Dr. C.P. Chopra 
medically examined the accused Sanjeev in the wee 
B 
hours, it was found that the accused had suffered 
incised wound measuring 22 x 0.2 x 2 to 0.5 cm. on 
the posterior surface of left fore-arm, and there was 
cut in the shirt. This witness (PW-13) sent Ruka 
(memorandum) Ex. PP/1 to the in-charge, Police C 
Post, General Hospital (even before F.l.R. was 
lodged). 
iii) PW-12, Om Prakash, has stated that accused 
Sanjeev disclosed him on 14.1.2000, that on 
11.1.2000, he (accused) had altercation with Raj Pal 
D 
after consuming liquor whereafter he assaulted the 
deceased with the brick. 
iv) 
PW-1,A.S.I. Rajiv Kumar, and PW-7, Inspector Ram 
Kala, have adduced the evidence that on 15.1.2000 E 
on disclosure (Ex.-PA) from the accused Sanjeev, his 
blood stained clothes which were concealed by him 
in a wooden box in his house, were recovered. 
v) 
From the forensic laboratory report, it is established 
F 
that same blood group was found in the blood stained 
clothes recovered i.e. blood group 'O'. 
13. The above circumstances, read together, make us 
belief that it is only the appellant who could have caused death 
of Raj Pal in the intervening night of 11.1.2000 and 12 .1.2000. G 
When the prosecution has successfully proved
that accused 
Sanjeev suffered the injury, as mentioned above, almost at the 
same time when the deceased had suffered the injuries, there 
should have been some explanation on the record from the 
side of the defence as to how he (accused) received the injury H
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A and went to Government Hospital where his injury was recorded 
by PW-13, Dr. C.P. Arora, before giving him medical treatment. 
In absence thereof, the courts below had no reason to 
disbelieve the evidence relating to above chain of 
circumstances and they rightly recorded the finding that it was 
B accused Sanjeev only who could have caused death with the 
knowledge that act committed by him is likely to result in death 
of the person assaulted. 
14. On behalf of the appellant it is submitted that there 
C was no motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of 
Raj Pal, as such, in absence of motive, it cannot be said that it 
was only the appellant who could have committed the crime. 
15. It is settled principle of law that, to establish 
commission of murder by an accused, motive is not required 
D to be proved. Motive is something which prompts a man to 
form an intention. The intention can be formed even at the place 
of incident at the time of commission of crime. It is only either 
intention or knowledge on the part of the accused which is 
required to be seen in respect of the offence of culpable 
E homicide. In order to read either intention or knowledge, the 
courts have to examine the circumstances, as there cannot be 
any direct evidence as to the state of mind of the accused. 
16. In the present case, from the evidence of PW-12 Om 
F Prakash, it reflects that while making extra judicial confession, 
the
appellant narrated that after both he and Raj Pal got drunk, 
they engaged into an altercation whereafter scuffle took place, 
and the appellant caused injuries on the forehead and chest 
of the deceased. This fact gets corroborated from the 
statement of PW-13, Dr. C.P. Arora, who recorded wound 
G measuring 22 x 02 x 2 to .5 cm in the medical report soon after 
the time of the incident, on the person of the appellant. 
17. Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC provides that culpable 
homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre-meditation 
H in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
SANJEEV v. STATE OF HARYANA 
[PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
219 
and without the offender having taken undue advantage or A 
acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation to Exception 
4 to the Section further provides that it is immaterial in such 
cases which party offers provocation or commits the first 
assault. 
18. In our opinion, when the prosecution evidence relating 
to extra judicial confession made before PW-12, Om Prakash, 
B 
is believed by the courts below to examine as to whether act 
committed by the accused constitutes culpable homicide 
amounting to murder or not, they should have read the C 
statement as a whole, and the circumstances, in which the 
injuries were caused by the appellant to the deceased, should 
not have been ignored. Having gone through the evidence on 
record and considering the submissions of the learned counsel 
for the parties, we are of the view that the act committed by the 0 
appellant in the present case is covered by Exception 4 to 
Section 300 IPC, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to 
murder, as such the same is, punishable under Section 304 
Part I, IPC. 
19. For the reasons, as discussed above, we are inclined 
E 
to partly interfere with the impugned orders. The conviction 
and sentence recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the 
High Court in·respect of offence punishable under Section 302 
IPC against the appellant, is set aside. Instead, the appellant 
is convicted under Section 304 Part I, IPC and sentenced to 
F
undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay 
fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of which the appellant shall undergo 
imprisonment for a further period of two months. Amount of 
fine if deposited in compliance of orders of courts below shall 
be treated to have been deposited in compliance of direction G 
of this Court as above. The appellant is said to be in jail and 
he shall complete the sentence, as awarded by this Court. 
20. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal disposed of. 
H