Ravinder Kumar @Raju vs State Of Punjab

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5690 of 2020)

RAVINDER KUMAR @RAJU …Appellant (s)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. Road rage results in disastrous

consequences to both the perpetrator and the

target; as the present case demonstrates, which

resulted in the murder of one of the assailants

and the arraignment of three who were targeted,

Signature Not Verified as accused for the murder. The appellant is the Digitally signed by Nirmala Negi

sole accused, out of the three, convicted for the Date: 2025.03.25 18:28:11 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 9

offence under Section 302 of the India Penal

Code, 18601 and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ₹ 2000/-

(Rupees Two Thousand only) with default clause

of rigorous imprisonment for two months, if fine

is not paid. The other two accused were

acquitted.

3. Of the two acquitted; one was

acquitted by the Trial Court and one by the

Appellate Court. The State had challenged the

acquittal by the Trial Court by way of an appeal

which also stood rejected by the impugned

judgment. As of now, we are only concerned

with the appellant-herein who was convicted

and sentenced for the offence of murder under

Section 302 of the I.P.C. At the admission stage,

this Court had issued a notice limited to the

1 “I.P.C.”

Page 2 of 9 nature of the offence; whether it falls under

Section 302 or Section 304 of the I.P.C. We are,

hence, confining ourselves to this aspect and

the sentencing, if a lesser offence is made out.

4. On facts, it is to be noticed that the

deceased was riding a motorcycle in which his

father was travelling pillion. Alongside the

brother of the deceased was also riding a bike;

the three proceeding to a common destination.

At a crossing, they saw a three wheeler colliding

with a scooter and the rider of the scooter falling

down. The offending vehicle sped away while the

father and sons approached the fallen

scooterist, who told them that he had escaped

without any injuries. At that moment, another

scooterist also joined them, who was the

colleague of the person involved in the accident;

both being Lecturers in a nearby college. The

Page 3 of 9 scooterist wanted to pursue the offending

vehicle and requested the father and sons to

join them. Together, the five went after the

vehicle and detected it at the crime scene. The

scooterist and the father accosted the identified

accused and questioned them on their conduct.

It was the prosecution’s case that while an

altercation was going on, the appellant-herein

picked up an iron rod from his vehicle and hit

the deceased on the head. After this the three

accused, who were in the three-wheeler, sped

away and the injured was taken to the hospital.

5. A DDR was registered immediately on

the information supplied by the father but no

First Information Report2 was registered. An

F.I.R. was registered only after five days when

the victim succumbed to the injury. The post-

2 “F.I.R.”

Page 4 of 9 mortem report clearly indicates a homicidal

death occasioned by the single injury inflicted

on the head. The iron rod was recovered on the

confessional statement of the appellant under

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We

are not looking at the nitty-gritty of the

evidence, since the limited adjudication possible

is as to the nature of the crime; whether it can

be classified as a culpable homicide not

amounting to murder under Section 304 of the

I.P.C.

6. There is no motive alleged on the

accused nor can there be found any pre-

meditation of the accused. True, the accused

were travelling in a vehicle which hit the

scooterist and sped away. It was the scooterist

accompanied by four others, one of whom was

the deceased, who chased the offending vehicle.

Page 5 of 9 The offending vehicle and its occupants having

been identified, it was the five who confronted

them and accused them of having dashed down

the scooter and not having even the courtesy to

help the fallen scooterist. Pausing here, we have

to clearly notice that the father of the deceased

and the scooterist who had been hit, both spoke

of the number of the offending vehicle having

been taken by them. Despite this, they did not

think it fit to approach the police and took law

into their own hands, while pursuing the

offending vehicle which was involved in a hit

and run and confronting its occupants.

7. Definitely, it was in the course of such

altercation that the blow was inflicted on the

head of the accused resulting in an injury which

caused his death. As we observed, there is no

pre-meditation and it was the deceased and the

Page 6 of 9 persons along with him who chased and

confronted the accused. It was a group of five

persons who confronted the three occupants of

the vehicle involved in the hit and run. The

altercation was spoken of, but the witnesses of

the prosecution only spoke of heated

arguments. It was in the course of such

altercation that the 1st accused who is the

appellant-herein picked up an iron rod and hit

the deceased. There cannot be any intention to

cause death alleged but there is definitely an

intention to cause bodily injury which resulted

in the death. We say this, since the assailants,

including the deceased, were not armed and in

the midst of a wordy altercation, the accused

took out an iron rod and hit one of the

assailants on the head; a vital part of the body.

Hence, culpability under Section 299 of the

Page 7 of 9 I.P.C. though attracted, it does not result in a

finding under Section 300 since it falls under

Exception 1. The one blow inflicted on the head

of the deceased resulted in his death, that too

after five days, which overt act was without any

pre-meditation and was occasioned in an

altercation where the group comprising the

deceased were the aggressors and the offender-

appellant herein could be said to have acted

under sudden provocation, thus being deprived

of the power of self-control. Necessarily, the

offence has to be found to be one under Section

304 of the I.P.C. being culpable homicide not

amounting to murder. However, under Part I of

Section 304 of the I.P.C., since the bodily injury

deliberately inflicted was likely to cause death

and in such circumstance, the conviction has to

be modified to be under Section 304 Part I. In

Page 8 of 9 the totality of the circumstances based on the

evidence led, we are of the opinion that the

sentence has to be of 7 years rigorous

imprisonment. The fine imposed and the default

sentence shall remain untouched. The

appellant, if on bail, shall surrender within a

period of two months before the jurisdictional

Court, if he has not already completed seven

years in jail.

8. The Criminal Appeal is allowed to the

above extent.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall

stand disposed of.

……………………..……………, J.

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

……………………..……………, J.

[K. VINOD CHANDRAN] NEW DELHI;

MARCH 25, 2025.

Page 9 of 9