Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.40 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Surinder Kumar vs Union Territory, Chandigarh on 8 March, 1989
"20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to
be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder
Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC
(Cri) 348], it has been explained as under :(SCC p. 220, para
Arumugam vs State Rep.By Inspector Of ... on 13 October, 2008
21. Further in Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 :
Rambir vs State Of Nct Delhi on 6 May, 2019
(19) Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above
principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is
quite vivid that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant
to cause death of the deceased, but only on account petty dispute that
though the appellant had promised the deceased (his wife) that he will
not drink, but on the fateful day the appellant came to the house under
the influence of liquor vis-a-vis in breach of his promise and asked
deceased to serve him food, upon which, deceased refused to serve
him food, followed by sudden quarrel and under heat of passion and
under the influence of liquor, the appellant, who is husband of
deceased, assaulted her by means of iron rod, 'tava' and cooker, due to
which she suffered grievous head injuries and succumbed to death,
which fact has been duly established by statements of eye-witnesses,
namely, Raunak Khurana (PW-08) and Ku. Ritika Khurana (PW-09),
who are children of the appellant and the deceased and have clearly
seen the incident. As such, there was no premeditation on the part of
the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only because of
CRA-296-2014
Page 13 of 14
sudden quarrel, under anger and influence of liquor and in heat of
passion, the appellant assaulted deceased and caused his death.
However, looking to the head injuries sustained by deceased, the
appellant must have had knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him
on the body of the deceased would likely to cause her death, as such,
this is a case which would fall within the purview of Exception 4 to
Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein completely
satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC i.e. (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation;
Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sukhbir Singh vs State Of Haryana on 20 February, 2002
(13) The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of
Haryana1 has observed as under:-