SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.G. Balakrishnan and Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No.618 of 2005 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3944 of 2004) D/d. 21.4.2005.

Jeet Singh - Appellant

Versus

State Of Haryana - Respondent

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 or Section 304 Part I - Accused convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing death of deceased by giving a single blow on his head by weapon - Quarrel had ensued between them suddenly - Earlier to this there was no quarrel or enmity between accused and deceased - Under such circumstances, held, accused could be convicted under Section 304 Part I and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

[Para 5]

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard petitioner's counsel and counsel for the State of Haryana.

3. The appellant comes before this Court against his conviction and sentence. The brief facts are that on 16th August, 1995 the deceased Bawa Singh was working in his field. The appellant reached the field of the deceased and told that he shall not take tractor to his field as it would cause damage to his field crops. It appears that there ensued quarrel and the appellant gave a blow on the head of the deceased Bawa Singh. He sustained fracture on his head and died. P.W.3 Raj Kaur was examined on the side of the prosecution. The Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence and found him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

4. Going by the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of fact entered by the Sessions Judge and the High Court. However, we find some force in the contention urged by the appellant's counsel that the offence, if any, committed by the appellant may not come within the purview of Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

5. It is pointed out that there was no previous quarrel or enimity between the appellant and the deceased and the quarrel had suddenly taken place due to the fact that the deceased Bawa Singh drove the tractor through his field and the sudden quarrel ensued because of the conduct of the deceased. It is also pointed out that the appellant was having a weapon with him and he gave only one blow which unfortunately had resulted in the death of the deceased. It is contended by the appellant's counsel that the offence would come within the ambit of Section 304 Part I Indian Penal Code It is true that there is only one fatal injury on the head of the deceased. The appellant must have inflicted a blow on the head of the deceased because of the quarrel between the two. The appellant certainly would have knowledge that his act would result in the death of the deceased. Hence, the offence comes under the purview of Section 304 Part I of the Criminal Procedure Code and hence we set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and hold him guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part I of Criminal Procedure Code and sentence him to undergo imprisonment for a period of 8 years.

6. The appeal is disposed of as above.

.