Murder Conviction Modified to Culpable Homicide in Land Dispute Case

The case of Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu v. State of Punjab revolves around a fatal land dispute that led to the death of Harbhajan Singh. The Supreme Court modified the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC, recognizing the absence of premeditation and the presence of a sudden quarrel.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a long-standing land dispute between two families in Village Dasupur, Punjab. Harbhajan Singh, the deceased, and Satnam Singh, one of the accused, had ongoing disagreements over agricultural land. The conflict escalated when Satnam Singh accused Harbhajan Singh’s family of stealing his dog.

On November 2, 2007, both families gathered near a tubewell in an attempt to resolve the dispute. However, heated exchanges led to a scuffle. During the altercation:

• Satnam Singh allegedly restrained Harbhajan Singh.
• Gurwinder Singh fetched an axe from a nearby room and struck Harbhajan Singh on the head.
• The victim suffered severe injuries and was rushed to a hospital but succumbed to his injuries on December 1, 2007.

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered five days after the incident, as settlement talks were ongoing.

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution presented evidence to establish:

• The presence of eye-witnesses, including Sukhwinder Singh (PW-6) and Sandeep Singh (PW-7).
• Medical reports confirming the axe-inflicted head injuries as the cause of death.
• The role of both accused: Satnam Singh in restraining the victim and Gurwinder Singh in delivering the fatal blow.

Arguments by the Defense

The defense contended that:

• The case was falsely framed due to the land dispute.
• The accused also suffered injuries in the same incident, which were left unexplained by the prosecution.
• The event was a sudden fight without premeditation.

High Court’s Judgment

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the trial court’s verdict, convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The court ruled that the nature of the attack, the choice of weapon, and the location of the injury indicated an intent to kill.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court considered key aspects of the case:

“The incident was not premeditated but resulted from a sudden quarrel. The accused, in the heat of passion, caused fatal injuries but did not act with the intention of murder.”

The Court acknowledged that:

• The accused also sustained injuries, suggesting a two-sided altercation.
• The FIR was delayed due to ongoing settlement discussions.
• The victim survived for a month before succumbing, indicating that the act was not excessively cruel.
• The accused did not take undue advantage or act in a manner deemed unusual or cruel.

Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC

The Supreme Court applied Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which allows for modification of a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder if:

• The act was committed without premeditation.
• It occurred in a sudden fight or heat of passion.
• The offender did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner.

Referring to Sridhar Bhuyan v. State of Orissa, the Court reiterated:

“A sudden fight implies mutual provocation and blows from both sides, placing the blame equally on both parties.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the conviction:

• From Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
• Sentenced the accused to seven years of imprisonment.
• Since Gurwinder Singh had already served more than ten years, he was ordered to be released immediately.
• Satnam Singh was directed to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Conclusion

The judgment reinforces the principle that not every homicide falls under murder. If the act occurs in the heat of passion without premeditation, courts may exercise discretion to classify it as culpable homicide. The ruling provides a precedent for cases involving land disputes and sudden fights.

Petitioner Name: Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu.
Respondent Name: State of Punjab.
Judgment By: Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice R. Banumathi.
Place Of Incident: Dasupur, Punjab.
Judgment Date: 08-05-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Gurwinder Singh @ So vs State of Punjab Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 08-05-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Ranjan Gogoi
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category