MANU/SC/0670/2019

Equivalent Citation: 2019(198)AIC 5, AIR2019SC 2264, 2019 (107) AC C 946, 2019(2)C rimes255(SC ), 260(2019)DLT122, 2019(3)J.L.J.R.130,
2019(2)JKJ235[SC ], 2019(2)N.C .C .687, 2019(3)PLJR130, 2019(7)SC ALE374, (2019)6SC C 122, 2019(2)UC 1098

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9781 of 2018)
Decided On: 06.05.2019
Appellants: Rambir
Vs.
Respondent: State of NCT, Delhi
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
R. Banumathi and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shikhil Suri and Shiv Kumar Suri, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Pinky Anand, ASG, Ashok Panigrahi, P.S. Sudheer, Kriti
Dua and B.V. Balaram Das, Advs.
Case Category:
CRIMINAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL MATTERS IN WHICH SENTENCE AWARDED IS LIFE
IMPRISONMENT
Case Note:
Criminal - Conviction - Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -
Present appeal was directed against judgment passed by High Court, by
which High Court confirmed conviction and sentence imposed on Appellant
by Additional Sessions Judge - Whether conviction recorded against
Appellant under Section 302 of IPC was liable to be set aside.
Facts:
As per the case of the prosecution, the Appellant strangulated his wife-Sua
and caused her death on the rooftop of the premises. In connection with
the said incident, a case was registered in FIR against the Appellant-
accused under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC. The Appellant-accused was tried
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. To prove the guilt of the
Appellant-accused, prosecution examined 18 witnesses. After considering
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and other evidence on record,
the learned trial court, i.e., learned Additional Sessions Judge, held that
Appellant is guilty for offence under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of
his wife, vide judgment. Further, the trial court, by order sentenced the
Appellant for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
The conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the trial court was
challenged before the High Court. High Court, by considering the judgment
under appeal and by re-appreciating the evidence on record, has come to
the conclusion that, prosecution has proved the case against the Appellant
beyond any reasonable doubt. High Court confirmed the conviction under
Section 302 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial

04-07-2021 (Page 1 of 6) www.manupatra.com Miraz Ahmed

court.
Held, while allowing the appeal
1. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC shows that, the
following four ingredients are required: (i) There must be a sudden fight;
(ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of
passion; and (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted
in a cruel or unusual manner. From the evidence on record, it is clear that,
incident occurred in a sudden fight and there was no pre-meditation. Even
the primary witness PW-7, the son of the Accused and deceased, has
deposed that he had seen the Appellant strangulating his mother-deceased-
with the 'saria' when she had taken out some money from the Appellant's
wallet. It is not as if 'saria' was brought in a pre-planned way to murder the
wife of the Appellant. The iron rod (saria) is picked up at the spur of the
moment at the time of incident and used to compress the neck forcefully. It
is an act committed by the Appellant in a heat of passion. Further, the High
Court has not given the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC on the
ground that Appellant compressed his wife's neck also depicts an act of
extreme cruelty. In view of nature and manner of incident, it cannot be said
that, act of the Appellant was extremely cruel. Unless it is barbaric,
torturous and brutal, strangulation of the Appellant's wife cannot be said to
be an act of extreme cruelty for denying the benefit of Exception 4 to
Section 300 of IPC. [13]
2. The case of the Appellant falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.
Further, the judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory,
Chandigarh also supports the case of the Appellant. In the aforesaid case,
this Court held that in a sudden quarrel, if a person, in the heat of the
moment, picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries one of
which proves fatal, Accused would be entitled to the benefit of Exception 4.
All the four ingredients which are required to extend the benefit of
Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, apply to the facts of the case on hand.
Since, the occurrence in sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation,
the act of the Appellant-accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section
300 of IPC. As such, the conviction recorded against the Appellant under
Section 302 of IPC is accordingly set aside and the conviction of the
Appellant-accused under Section 302 of IPC is modified, as the one under
Section 304 Part II of IPC and we impose a sentence of 10 years' simple
imprisonment on the accused. [14]
3. The conviction recorded and sentence imposed on the Appellant stands
modified. Appeal is partly allowed. [15]

JUDGMENT
R. Banumathi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2017 passed by
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2012, by which

04-07-2021 (Page 2 of 6) www.manupatra.com Miraz Ahmed

High Court has dismissed the criminal appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed on the Appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi, whereby he has been convicted for offence Under Section 302 Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
3 . As per the case of the prosecution, on the intervening night of 31.08.2010 and
01.09.2010, the Appellant strangulated his wife-Sua and caused her death on the
rooftop of the premises No. C-834, Gali No. 30/3, Jafrabad, Delhi. In connection with
the said incident, a case was registered in FIR No. 205/2010 against the Appellant-
accused Under Sections 302 and 34 Indian Penal Code on 01.09.2010. The Appellant-
accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. To prove the guilt
of the Appellant-accused, prosecution examined 18 witnesses. After considering the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses and other evidence on record, the learned
trial court, i.e., learned Additional Sessions Judge, held that Appellant is guilty for
offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, for the murder of his wife, vide
judgment dated 19.07.2012. Further, the trial court, by order dated 23.07.2012
sentenced the Appellant for life imprisonment for the offence Under Section 302
Indian Penal Code.
4 . The conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the trial court was challenged
before the High Court mainly on the following grounds:
i) The Trial Court has erred in ignoring the fact that the presence of Anurag:
the child witness (PW-7) was highly doubtful on the scene of crime and his
testimony could not be relied upon as the witness PW-7 was a tutored
witness.
ii) PW-1 (Constable Neeraj Kumar) who was posted as Photographer in the
Crime Team stated in his testimony that, 'No eye witness came forward
before the IO claiming himself to have seen any event in his presence',
whereas PW-7 has been cited as a witness of a crime.
iii) None of the witnesses had deposed about the presence of PW-7 at the
scene of the crime whereas the witness PW-7 had deposed that he was also
sleeping on the roof.
iv) The Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the body of the deceased
was preserved for 72 hours before it was subjected to postmortem, from
which it was apparent that the police had no clue about the accused. In these
circumstances Anurag was introduced as a tutored witness. Neither any
inquiry or investigation was carried out as to where the child had been till
then and from where he was produced and by whom, which clearly
suggested that the witness had been deliberately introduced.
v) The Trial Court erred in presuming the fact relating to the presence of the
Appellant at the scene of occurrence for the entire period of inquiry whereas
it had come in evidence that he had been arrested through a secret informer
which clearly shows about false implication of the Appellant.
vi) the weapon of the offence 'saria' which was allegedly got recovered by
the Appellant pursuant to his disclosure, was a piece of rod bearing twist
marks but the post mortem did not suggest whether the strangulation mark
appearing on the neck of the deceased had those twist marks of the 'saria'.

04-07-2021 (Page 3 of 6) www.manupatra.com Miraz Ahmed

5. The High Court, by considering the judgment under appeal and by re-appreciating
the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that prosecution has proved the
case against the Appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The reliance is placed by
the trial court on the deposition of PW-7 who is the son of the Appellant and
deceased who was an eye witness to the incident of murder. By further considering
the oral evidence of PW-7 whose statement was further corroborated by PW-9-Fayaz,
who had last seen the Appellant leaving the place of incident in the morning at 06:30
a.m. and on the deposition of PW-17-Kishan and PW-18-Shahid who confirmed the
presence of the Appellant, the High Court has recorded a finding that their deposition
inspired confidence and all the aforesaid witnesses stood the test of cross-
examination and thus confirmed the finding of the trial court that Appellant has
strangulated his wife with 'saria' as a result of which she died.
6. Further, while considering the plea of the Appellant's counsel who was appointed
by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, that the incident happened in the
fit of anger and under influence of liquor, lost his cool, picked up quarrel with the
wife and strangulated her with the help of 'saria', as such the case of the Appellant
falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, the High Court has found
that two ingredients of Exception 4 are missing. High Court has not accepted such
plea and confirmed the conviction Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentence
of life imprisonment imposed by the trial court.
7. This Court, by order dated 13.11.2018, has issued notice limited to the nature of
the punishment and the quantum of sentence.
8 . We have heard Sri Shikhil Suri, learned Counsel for the Appellant and also Ms.
Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Respondent-
State.
9 . In this appeal, mainly it is contended by learned Counsel for the Appellant that
having regard to facts of the case and the evidence on record, no case is made out
for convicting the Appellant Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that
the Appellant had no intention to kill his wife and there was no pre-meditation of any
kind. According to learned Counsel, it was a case of normal quarrel between the
husband and wife which turned ugly upon the wife trying to forcibly take out money
from his pocket. The submission of the Appellant is that in the fit of anger, the
Appellant, who was under influence of liquor, lost his cool, picked up 'saria' to hit his
wife. It is submitted that he neither intended to cause her death nor did he realise
during the sudden fight that his act of pressing her neck with 'saria' would cause her
death. By referring to Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, learned Counsel
has submitted that all the four ingredients thereof apply to the facts of the case on
hand and it is submitted that the finding of the High Court, that two of the
ingredients to bring the case of the Appellant under Exception 4 are not satisfied,
runs contrary to the evidence on record.
1 0 . On the other hand learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
Respondent-State has submitted that it is a clear case of murder which is proved
against the Appellant by four material witnesses, viz., PW-7; PW-9; PW-17 and PW-
18. It is submitted that the Appellant has strangulated his wife with a 'saria' as a
result of which she died. It is submitted that the act of picking up of 'saria' and
compressing forcefully the neck of his wife, can by no stretch of imagination be said
to be an act committed in a fit of anger. Further it is submitted that the strangulation
with the help of 'saria' is an extremely cruel act upon the Appellant, as such, the plea

04-07-2021 (Page 4 of 6) www.manupatra.com Miraz Ahmed

of Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code is negated rightly by the High Court
and there are no grounds to interfere.
11. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned
judgment and other material placed on record.
1 2 . As indicated above, this Court has issued notice limited to the nature of
punishment and quantum of sentence. While it is the case of the Appellant that even
by accepting the evidence on record, the case of the prosecution falls under
Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code, as such, trial court and High Court
have committed error in convicting the Appellant for offence Under Section 302
Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for imprisonment for life. Even as per the case
of the prosecution the incident occurred on the intervening night of 31.08.2010 and
01.09.2010 on the rooftop of premises No. C-834, Gali No. 30/3, Jafrabad, Delhi. The
primary witness is PW-7 who is the son of the Appellant and the deceased, who has
stated that he had seen the Appellant strangulating his mother-the deceased-with the
'saria' after she had taken out some money from the Appellant's wallet. PW-15-SI
Dharmandra Pratap was the first to arrive at the scene of crime and testified as to
presence of the body of the deceased on the terrace along with, among other things,
a 'saria', an empty liquor bottle and a plastic glass. PW-9-Fayaz, who was working in
the workshop in the said premises, testified to have witnessed the Appellant leaving
the premises in the morning on 01.09.2010.
13. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code shows that the
following four ingredients are required:
(i) There must be a sudden fight;
(ii) There was no premeditation;
(iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion;
and
(iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner.
By applying the above tests, the High Court has found that two of the ingredients are
absent so as to bring the case of the Appellant under Exception 4 to Section 300
Indian Penal Code. The High Court has found that the act of picking up a 'saria' and
compressing forcefully the neck of his wife by the Appellant, can, by no stretch of
imagination, be said to be an act committed in a heat of passion. Further it is held
that, the manner in which the Appellant compressed his wife's neck also depicts an
act of extreme cruelty. From the evidence on record it is clear that incident occurred
in a sudden fight and there was no pre-meditation. Even the primary witness PW-7,
the son of the Accused and deceased, has deposed that he had seen the Appellant
strangulating his mother-deceased-with the 'saria' when she had taken out some
money from the Appellant's wallet. It is not as if 'saria' was brought in a pre-planned
way to murder the wife of the Appellant. The iron rod (saria) is picked up at the spur
of the moment at the time of incident and used to compress the neck forcefully. In
that view of the matter it is nothing but an act committed by the Appellant in a heat
of passion. Further, the High Court has not given the benefit of Exception 4 to
Section 300 Indian Penal Code on the ground that Appellant compressed his wife's
neck also depicts an act of extreme cruelty. Having regard to nature and manner of

04-07-2021 (Page 5 of 6) www.manupatra.com Miraz Ahmed

incident it cannot be said that act of the Appellant was extremely cruel. Unless it is
barbaric, torturous and brutal, strangulation of the Appellant's wife cannot be said to
be an act of extreme cruelty for denying the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300
Indian Penal Code.
14. Having regard to evidence on record, we are of the view that the case of the
Appellant falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. Further, the
judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh
MANU/SC/0589/1989 : (1989) 2 SCC 217 also supports the case of the Appellant. In
the aforesaid case, the knife blows were inflicted in the heat of the moment, one of
which caused death of the deceased, this Court has held that Accused is entitled to
the benefit of Exception 4. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court further held that in a
sudden quarrel, if a person, in the heat of the moment, picks up a weapon which is
handy and causes injuries one of which proves fatal, Accused would be entitled to the
benefit of Exception 4. We are of the view that the said judgment supports the case
of the Appellant and further having regard to evidence on record we are of the view
that all the four ingredients which are required to extend the benefit of Exception 4 to
Section 300 Indian Penal Code, apply to the facts of the case on hand. Since the
occurrence in sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act of the
Appellant-accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code. As
such, the conviction recorded against the Appellant Under Section 302 Indian Penal
Code is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the conviction of the
Appellant-accused Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code is modified, as the one
Under Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code and we impose a sentence of 10 years'
simple imprisonment on the accused.
15. The appeal is partly allowed and the conviction recorded and sentence imposed
on the Appellant stands modified as indicated above.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

04-07-2021 (Page 6 of 6) www.manupatra.com Miraz Ahmed