Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on March 25, 2025, observed that road rage results in disastrous consequences to both the perpetrator and the target as it sentenced a man to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for causing death of another man by giving him a fatal blow by an iron rod in one such incident.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran modified the conviction of appellant Ravinder Kumar alias Raju from murder to that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

In the case, the court noted that the 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 could acted under sudden provocation, thus being deprived of the power of self-control.

The court also pointed out there was no motive alleged on the accused nor could there be found any premeditation of the accused. 

The accused were travelling in a vehicle that 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. 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, the court noted.

"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," the bench said.

Definitely, the bench said, it was in the course of such an altercation that the blow was inflicted on the head of the accused resulting in an injury that caused his death. It was a group of five persons who confronted the three occupants of the vehicle involved in the hit and run.

"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," the bench said.

Hence, the court held the culpability under Section 299 of the IPC though attracted, it did not result in a finding under Section 300 since it fell under Exception 1. The one blow inflicted on the head of the deceased resulted in his death, that too after five days. 

"Necessarily, the offence has to be found to be one under Section 304 of the IPC being culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, under Part I of Section 304 of the IPC, 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," the bench said.

"We are of the opinion that the sentence has to be of seven years rigorous imprisonment," the bench said, directing the appellant to surrender within a period of two months to serve the sentence.

The court partly allowed the appeal by Ravinder Kumar alias Raju who was convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Two other accused were acquitted in the case. The court at the admission stage had issued notice limited to the extent whether the case fell under Section 302 or Section 304 of the IPC.

As per the facts of the matter, 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 proceeded 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 at a nearby college. The 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 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 were taken to the hospital. 

An FIR was registered only after five days when the victim succumbed to the injury. The post-mortem report clearly indicated 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.

The court did not look at the nitty-gritty of the evidence, since the limited adjudication possible was as to the nature of the crime; whether it could be classified as a culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC.

Case Title: Ravinder Kumar @Raju Vs State of Punjab