Two Forceful Stick Blows on Vital Part Show Intention to Kill, Not Mere Knowledge: Punjab and Haryana High Court Refuses to Reduce Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC
Case Name: Major Singh v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 8 September 2026
Citation: CRA-D No. 419-DB of 2005
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Archana Puri and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the absence of a skull fracture or the use of an ordinarily non-deadly weapon does not take a homicide outside Section 302 IPC where the manner of assault demonstrates an intention to cause death. A wooden stick or soti becomes a deadly weapon when deliberately used with sufficient force to strike repeated blows upon a vital part of the body. Two forceful blows delivered to opposite sides of the victim’s head, which rendered him immediately unconscious and caused fatal subdural haemorrhage, were sufficient to establish the requisite murderous intention. The Court rejected the plea for conversion of the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Summary: The appeal challenged the judgment dated 20 May 2005 by which Major Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Gurjant Singh and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of ₹5,000. In default of payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for an additional two years.
According to the prosecution, complainant Harbans Singh and his brother Major Singh were proceeding towards the house of their brother Gurjant Singh on the night of 11 October 2003. At approximately 9:30 p.m., they saw Gurjant Singh and his wife arguing in the street. The appellant, also named Major Singh, allegedly arrived armed with a wooden soti or dang and, without any immediate provocation or altercation, struck Gurjant Singh first on the right side of his head near the ear and then on the left side. Gurjant Singh fell unconscious, while the appellant fled with the weapon.
The injured was taken to Civil Hospital, Bathinda, during the early hours of 12 October 2003 after the family managed to arrange transportation. He remained unfit to make a statement and died on 14 October 2003. The case, initially recorded under Section 323 IPC, was thereafter converted into an FIR under Section 302 IPC. The weapon was subsequently recovered from a fodder room pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement.
The appellant denied the assault and alleged false implication. His defence was that Gurjant Singh was intoxicated, fell repeatedly in the street and sustained head injuries after striking the ground or brickbats. He also alleged that prosecution witness Major Singh was associated with a former Sarpanch who bore political animosity against the appellant because of voting in a panchayat election.
In appeal, it was contended that the eyewitnesses were related to the deceased and were not present at the scene. The defence questioned their post-occurrence conduct, the delay in taking the injured to hospital and the subsequent registration of the FIR. It was further argued that the medical evidence was inconsistent with the ocular account and that the injuries could have resulted from a fall on a hard surface.
Alternatively, the appellant argued that an offence under Section 302 IPC was not established. He submitted that only two blows had been inflicted with an ordinary wooden stick, no skull fracture was detected and there was no intention to cause death. On that basis, conversion of the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC was sought.
The High Court found the testimonies of eyewitnesses Harbans Singh and Major Singh natural, consistent and trustworthy. Both witnesses remained unshaken regarding the appellant’s arrival with the soti, the two blows inflicted upon the deceased’s head and his immediate escape from the scene. Minor discrepancies concerning distances between houses and other peripheral matters did not affect the core prosecution case.
The Court rejected the argument that the eyewitnesses were unreliable merely because they were the deceased’s brothers. A related witness cannot automatically be treated as an interested witness. To discredit such testimony, the defence must establish a personal motive, animosity or other reason for false implication. No credible material demonstrated that the eyewitnesses had any reason to shield the true offender and falsely implicate the appellant.
The alleged hostility arising from the panchayat election was also disbelieved. The defence failed to produce reliable documentary or contemporaneous material regarding the election or the alleged political dispute. The suggestion of such hostility was not put to the eyewitnesses during cross-examination and emerged for the first time through a defence witness.
The Court further held that failure to establish motive was not fatal because the case rested upon trustworthy direct evidence. Where the occurrence is proved by credible eyewitness testimony, motive recedes in significance. In any event, the prosecution had suggested that the deceased objected to the appellant’s association with his son Baj Singh, which had caused resentment.
The medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness account. The initial medical examination recorded contusions and swelling over both sides of the deceased’s head and face. The CT scan revealed an acute subdural haematoma in the left temporo-parietal region, while the post-mortem examination disclosed subcutaneous and subdural haematomas. The doctor opined that the injuries were ante-mortem, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course and consistent with soti blows. The medical witnesses specifically ruled out the defence theory that the injuries resulted from the deceased striking his head against a wall or hard surface.
The Court also rejected the argument based on delay. The occurrence took place at night, the victim was unconscious and the witnesses, who were labourers belonging to the economically weaker section, faced difficulty arranging a vehicle. Once transportation became available, they took the victim to the hospital, where he was examined at 6:40 a.m. Police proceedings followed the hospital’s intimation. The sequence of events satisfactorily explained the time taken in initiating formal action.
The defence account of an intoxicated fall was found unreliable. The witness supporting that version disclosed it for the first time during his testimony in 2005 and had never approached the police or any authority with that account during the intervening period. The recovery of the soti pursuant to the appellant’s disclosure statement provided further corroboration to the prosecution case.
On the nature of the offence, the High Court held that the appellant arrived armed and attacked without a sudden fight, provocation or heat of passion. He deliberately struck two forceful blows upon both sides of the victim’s head, a vital and vulnerable part of the body. The assault rendered Gurjant Singh unconscious, and he never regained consciousness.
The Court observed that while a wooden soti may not ordinarily be classified as a deadly weapon, its character must be judged by how it was used. In the appellant’s hands, it was used with sufficient force upon the victim’s head to cause injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The absence of a fracture was therefore immaterial. Reliance was placed upon State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Dutt, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 759, where the Supreme Court held that absence of a fracture does not remove a case from Section 302 IPC when death results from the inflicted head injury.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed Major Singh’s conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC. It rejected the request to alter the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, holding that the intentional infliction of two forceful blows on the victim’s head established the requisite intention for murder. Since the appellant was on bail during the appeal, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned was directed to initiate his re-arrest so that he could undergo the remaining sentence.