Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor, but what is more important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and un-premeditated, and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger.

What was the Background of Mandeep v. State of Haryana Case?

• In this case the complaint was made by the Mange Ram father of Mohinder Singh.
• According to the complainant, on 25^th March 2010 his son goes for watering the plants in the field.
• His father followed him, Mohinder reached near the electric pole adjoining the field.
• Mandeep asked Mohinder to go there, and he replied that he would come after watering the plants.
• Mohinder and Mandeep started scuffling with each other. Sompal and Rohtash brothers of Mandeep and Karam Singh (Karmu) father of Mandeep also came in the field.
• Mohinder ran to save himself, but he was caught by all the accused. And Mandeep stabbed him in the stomach
• The complainant (Mohinder’s father) was also reached at the place of occurrence to save his son, but Sompal gave a lathi blow to him.
• The grandson of the Complainant was also present there and all the villagers coming towards the place of occurrence, but all the accused were fled away.
• The complainant, with the help of villagers shifted Mohinder to his house. He was severely injured. On reaching home he dies because of injuries caused by a knife.
• On the statement of the complainant the First Information Report (FIR) was registered. During investigation, Sompal, Karmu and Mandeep were arrested, and a knife was recovered from Mandeep’s possession.
• The trial court framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against Mandeep (appellant) and other accused.
• The defence of the appellant was that the appellant and Mohinder were close friends and used to sit together to have meals. On the day of incident suddenly there was a scuffle over a mobile phone and the appellant asked him to return mobile, Mohinder had caused injuries to the appellant and at the spur of the moment, the appellant inflicted a single injury with knife.
• His contention was that this is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC as the case of the appellant fell within the Exception No.4 of Section 300 of IPC.
• The trial court passed a judgment and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. And acquitted two other accused (Sompal and Karmu) as they got the benefit of doubt.
• Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court against the trial court order.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The High Court held that the cause of quarrel is not relevant, nor it is relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. Of course, the offender must not have taken in any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
• The court observed that there was no history of enmity between both the parties. It is apparent that by causing an injury with a knife (used in kitchen to cutting vegetables etc.), the present appellant had no intention to commit the murder of Mohinder, deceased.
• However, this knife was used with such a force that the person had met his death; knowledge has to be imputed to the appellant and in that situation, the present case would fall in Part II of Section 304 IPC.
• The court held that the appellant had admittedly not acted in a cruel or unusual manner and it was a fight, which had taken place at the spur of the moment. It can be safely concluded that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.
• The High court set aside the judgment of the trial court.

What is the Legal Provision Involved in this Case?

Section 304 of IPC and Section 103 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 covers: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. —

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,

or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

What are the Landmark Judgments Cited in this Case?

• Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002)
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all the fatal injuries resulting in death could not termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of Exception No.4 of Section 300 IPC.
  • In cases, where after the injured had fallen down, the appellant did not inflict any further injury when he was in a helpless position, it may indicate that he had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
• Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)
  • The Apex court held that for punishment under Section 304 Part I of IPC, the prosecution must prove: the death of the person in question; that such death was caused by the act of the accused and that the accused intended by such act to cause death or cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause death.
  • As regards punishment for Section 304 Part II of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question; that such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his was likely to cause death.