# Ramzan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 318
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.762 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramzan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44737
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Sri Kailash Nath Mishra.

Counsel for the. Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Rajeev Kumar Mishra
Rudra.

A. The Scheduled Castes and Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 14-A (1) -Appeal against the
summon to accused under of SC/ST Act.

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
204- Sufficient ground for issue of process.
At the stage of summoning the court is not
required to evaluate the evidence and its
merits. (Para 21)
In the case of police report at the stage of
issuing summons to the accused, the Magistrate
is not required to any reason. But in the case
when charge sheet is barred or rejected or lacks
of jurisdiction or when the charge sheet is
rejected then it is required to record his reasons
for rejection to the charge sheet. (Para 20)
In the case, F.I.R. corroborated by the
informant and other witness Section 161
Cr.P.C. and also injury report so summoning
order is affirmed.

Criminal Appeal dismissed (E-2)

List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order of the trial Court is modified
accordingly.

66. The appellants No. 3- Janki,
No.5- Babu and No.6- Ramadhar are
reported to be in jail, they will serve out
the sentence as modified by this Court.

67. So far as appeal pertaining to
appellant no.1 Ram Kishan, appellant no.2
Jagannath, appellant no.4- Shri Ram and
appellant no.7- Hardev is concerned the same
has already been abated, vide order dated
9.8.2019 of this Court, on account of their
death during pendency of this appeal.

68. The record of the subordinate
Court be transmitted to the Trial Court
along with a copy of this judgment for
compliance, at the earliest.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 318

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No.762 of 2019

Ramzan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Kailash Nath Mishra.

Counsel for the. Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Rajeev Kumar Mishra
Rudra.

A. The Scheduled Castes and Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 14-A (1) -Appeal against the
summon to accused under of SC/ST Act.

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section
204- Sufficient ground for issue of process.
At the stage of summoning the court is not
required to evaluate the evidence and its
merits. (Para 21)
In the case of police report at the stage of
issuing summons to the accused, the Magistrate
is not required to any reason. But in the case
when charge sheet is barred or rejected or lacks
of jurisdiction or when the charge sheet is
rejected then it is required to record his reasons
for rejection to the charge sheet. (Para 20)
In the case, F.I.R. corroborated by the
informant and other witness Section 161
Cr.P.C. and also injury report so summoning
order is affirmed.

Criminal Appeal dismissed (E-2)

List of Cases Cited: -
1. C.H.C.L. Employees Stock Option Trust Vs
India Infalin Ltd. (2013) 4 SCC 505,
2. M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. & anr. Vs Special
Judicial Magistrate & ors. AIR 1998 S.C. 128
3. AIR 2012 SC 1747 Bhushan Kumar & anr Vs
St. (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
4. AIR 197SC 1947 Smt. Nagawwa Vs
Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & ors.
5. AIR 2015 SC 923 Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs
C.B.I. (Three Judge Bench)
6. St. of Guj. Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta
2019 SCC online SC 13
7. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal Vs. St. of U.P.
1999 CRLJ 4101
8. Mehmood ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad
Tunda
(2015)
12
SCC
420
2 All. Ramzan & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
319
9.Amrawati & anr. Vs St. of U.P. (2004) 57
ALR 290
10. Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. St. of U.P.
(2009) 3 ADJ 332 (SC),
11. Hussain & ors. Vs Union of India (UOI) &
ors. MANU/SC/0274/2017,
12. Brahm Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam
Khan. J.)

1. Short counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the Opposite party No.2 and 3,
the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Shri Vishnu Deo
Shukla, learned AGA for the State,
learned counsel for the respondent No.2
& 3, and perused the record.

3. This Criminal Appeal under
Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the
appellants -Ramzan, Khaliq and Gulam
Haider
against
the
order
dated
08.03.2019 passed by the IInd Additional
Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Gonda in Special Session Trial No.
46/2019, 'State vs. Ramzan & others",
arising out of Case Crime No. 879/2018,
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 379
I.P.C. & 3(1) (Da)(Dha) of SC/ST Act,
Police Station Kotwali City, District
Gonda, whereby the appellants have been
summoned to ace trial.

4. Brief facts necessary for disposal
of this appeal are that, an application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved
by the complainant/respondent No.2-Smt.
Gudiya wife of Raju in the Court of
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda against
Appellant
No.1-Ramzan
and
two
unknown persons stating that, she belongs
to a Scheduled Caste (Kori) and her
husband Raju is "Block Pramukh",
Development Division Jhanjhari, District
Gonda and she is living at Gonda in
connection with education of her children.
It is further stated that, her husband
complained to C.D.O., Gonda about some
mischief
and
embezzlement
of
Government
money
committed
by
appellant No.1/Ramzan. It is further
alleged that he has committed financial
illegalities and have misappropriated
Government money by using name of one
Ramzan Ali son of Peer Mohammad. An
FIR, in the matter i.e. Case Crime No.
741/2017, under Sections 420, 468 I.P.C.
was lodged at P.S. Kotwali Nagar,
District Gonda, which was lodged by the
C.D.O. Gonda and the appellant Ramzan
had to remain in Jail in lieu of that and
after a long time, he was released on bail.

5. It is further submitted that, due to
the aforesaid enmity, on 08.09.2018 at
about
11:00
am,
accused/appellant
Ramzan along with his two companions
came to her house and hurled filthy
abuses and also addressed her with
Castiest remarks. Accused Ramzan and
his companions also physically assaulted
her after entering her house. In the
meantime, her husband came and accused
persons also assaulted him. They uprooted
the whole household material and also
looted some money and ornaments, which
was kept in a box. She went to the police
station, however, her report was not
lodged.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid
application, on an order made by the
Magistrate concerned, an FIR was lodged
as Case Crime No. 879 of 2018, under
Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 379 I.P.C. &
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3(1) (Da)(Dha) of SC/ST Act against
appellant-Ramzan and two unknown
persons.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR,
an
investigation
initiated
and
the
Investigating Officer after investigation
submitted a charge-sheet against the
appellants, under Sections 323, 504, 506,
452, 379 I.P.C. & 3(1) (Da)(Dha) of
SC/ST Act. The Special Judge on the
basis of the police report/charge-sheet
took cognizance of the offence and issued
process
against
the
appellants
on
08.03.2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506,
452, 379 I.P.C. & 3(1) (Da)(Dha) of
SC/ST Act. Aggrieved by the order of the
Special Judge dated 08.03.2019, whereby
the appellants have been summoned to
face trial in the penal sections mentioned
herein-before, they preferred this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants
while referring to the summoning order
passed by the Court below submits that,
the Court below without considering the
material transmitted with the charge-sheet
has acted as a mouthpiece of the
prosecution
and
without
sufficient
material, summoned the appellants to face
trial.

9. It is further submitted that, it was
not mentioned in the FIR or in the
statement of the witnesses that the victim
belongs to a Scheduled Caste, so there
was no question of the applicability of
SC/ST Act. It is further stated that, the
informant's
husband
is
a
"Block
Pramukh" and he made a complaint
before
prescribed
authority/Labour
Commissioner,
Devipatan,
Gonda,
pertaining to non-payment of his wages
and in Para No. 9 and 10 of that
complaint, he had written that on
30.08.2018, he had left the job of
appellants, as the appellant No.1 had not
paid his wages.

10. Highlighting the above factual
matrix, learned counsel for the appellants
submits that, in the First Information
Report, the incident has been alleged to
have happened on 08.09.2018. It is
overwhelmingly submitted that, only on
the basis of old enmity, this false case has
been cooked-up. The injury report,
pertaining to the informant as well as her
husband are false, as the medical
examination of the alleged injuries has not
been done in police custody, therefore, the
continuation of the proceedings pending
before the Court below are nothing, but an
abuse of the process of law and, therefore,
the same be set-aside.

11. Learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 and 3 submits that, on
the basis of previous enmity with the
husband of the informant, who made a
complaint against appellant No.1 namely
Ramzan, pertaining to misdeeds and
financial illegalities and misappropriation
of money committed by him, when he
was granted bail, he came to the house of
the informant with his brother Khaliq and
one Gulam Haider on a motorcycle and
physically assaulted the informant and her
husband and also addressed them with
castiest remarks, apart from threatening
and intimidating them.

12. It is further submitted that, the
informant as well as her husband has
sustained
injuries,
who
have
been
examined at Government Hospital, Gonda
on 08.09.2018 at 4:20 pm. & 4:30 pm.,
respectively.
The
police
after
investigation of the First Information
Report has submitted a charge-sheet and
2 All. Ramzan & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
321
the court below after applying its judicial
mind has taken the cognizance of the
offences and have summoned the accused
persons to face trial, therefore, there is no
illegality, so far as the summoning of the
accused persons are concerned.

13. Learned A.G.A., also opposes the
contention of learned counsel for the
appellants on the ground that, the court
below keeping in view the charge-sheet
and material submitted therewith, after
applying its judicial mind and finding
sufficient
material
on
record,
have
summoned the appellants to face trial and,
therefore, there is nothing illegal, so far as
the order of summoning is concerned.

14. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
record, it is apparent that, specific
allegations, pertaining to the castiest
remarks addressed in public view by the
appellants as well as threatening and
intimidating them as also of physical
assault by Appellant No.1 Ramzan and
his two companions have been made in
the FIR. In the statement of the informant
as well as her husband recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it has
categorically been stated that, on the basis
of old enmity, appellant Ramzan with his
companions after being bailed out in a
criminal case took the revenge on the
fateful day by entering into her house and
has also made physical assault on her and
her husband.

15. The Investigating Officer after
investigation has submitted the chargesheet, the injury reports of the informant
as well as of her husband have also been
placed on record. The injury report,
pertaining to the husband of the informant
namely Raju reveals that, he has sustained
05 injuries on different parts of his body.
While the informant namely Gudiya has
sustained about 04 injuries on different
parts of her body. The injuries of both the
injured persons have been found fresh by
the Doctor and also caused by hard and
blunt object. Perusal of these injuries,
prima facie shows that, these injuries may
not be the result of self-infliction.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of
this Court, there was sufficient material
available before the Court below to take
cognizance of the offence and to issue
process against the appellants. In a
criminal matter, the cognizance of an
offence, as provided under Section
190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. hereinafter called
the "Code" is taken for the purpose of
issuing process to the person, who has
committed the wrong. No doubt in the
process of taking judicial notice of certain
acts which constitute an offence, there has
to be application of mind by the
Magistrate or Special Judge, with regard
to
the
material
collected
by
the
Investigating Officer, pertaining to the
fact, as the whether same is sufficient to
proceed further and to call a person to
appear before a Criminal Court to face
trial. There cannot be two views that this
discretion
puts
higher
amount
of
responsibility
on
Magistrate
to
act
judicially, keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the particular case and
also keeping in view the law on the
subject. There cannot be any doubt that
this is not a stage, where the Magistrate
must explicitly state the reasons for
issuance of process, if the order clearly
states that, in the opinion of a Magistrate
or a Judge taking cognizance, there is
sufficient ground to proceed further, the
summons may be issued. Undoubtedly,
the Magistrate will have to form an
opinion, as to whether there exist
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sufficient grounds or not. There are many
cases
propounded
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court, which provide guidelines
to the Magistrate or Special Judge, as the
case may be, with regard to taking of
cognizance and issuance of process
pertaining to the complaint cases.

16. In "G.H.C.L.Employees Stock
Option Trust VS. India Infalin Ltd.
2013(4) SCC 505", It was reminded by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the
criminal law could not be set into motion
as a matter of course and the order of
summoning must reflect application of
mind as well as the satisfaction of the
Magistrate. In " M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd.
and
another
v.
Special
Judicial
Magistrate and others, AIR 1998 S. C .
128 " it was emphasized that, summoning
of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter and it should not be, that
complainant has to bring only 02
witnesses to support the allegations and to
get the process issued. The Magistrate
will have to carefully scrutinize the
evidence brought on record. In "AIR 2012
SUPREME
COURT
1747,
Bhushan
Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi)
and Anr", a necessity was shown to record
reasons for issuance of summons. In
"AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1947,
Smt.
Nagawwa
v/s
Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi & others",
detail guidelines were issued, pertaining
to
the
issuance
of
summonses
in
complaint
cases,
after
taking
into
consideration,
the
inherent
probabilities/improbabilities appearing on
the face of the complaint or in the
evidence led by the complainant in
support of his allegations. In "AIR 2015
SUPREME COURT 923,Sunil Bharti
Mittal
v.
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation (Three Judges Bench)", it
was emphasized that, a wide discretion
has been given to the Magistrate for grant
or refusal of issuance of process and it
was reminded that, it must be a judicial
exercise and also that a person should not
be dragged into the Court, merely because
a complaint has been filed against him
and also that, an opinion has to be formed
by the Magistrate in the facts and
circumstances of the case as to whether
there is sufficient grounds to proceed
further..

17. Honble Supreme Court in a
recent decision "State of Gujrat Vs
Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported
in 2019 SCC online SC 13", while
considering the obligation of Magistrate
at the time of issuance of summons to the
accused persons, while taking cognizance
of offences on a police report, under
Section 190 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
formulated a point, as to whether the
Court has to record reasons for its
satisfaction of sufficient grounds for
issuance
of
summon,
while
taking
cognizance of an offence under Section
190 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Answering this
question, Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that, it is well-settled at the stage of
issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly
concerned with the allegations made in
the complaint or with the evidence let in
support of the same.

18. It is further stipulated that, the
summons is a process issued by the Court
calling upon a person to appear before the
Magistrate notifying him to appear before
the Magistrate, as a response to violation
of law.

19. It is further highlighted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that, Section 204
of the Cr.P.C. does not mandate the
2 All. Ramzan & Ors. Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
323
Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons
for issuance of summons. It clearly states
that, if in the opinion of a Magistrate
taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, then the
summons may be issued.

20. While referring to the many
cases,
pertaining
to
the
taking
of
cognizance under Section 190 (1)(a) of
the Cr.P.C. (on a complaint), it is stated
that, at this juncture, the Magistrate is
having only a complaint before him, with
regard to Section 190(1)(b), the Hon'ble
Court cites a Single Judge decision of this
Court in "Rajendra Kumar Agrawal Vs.
State of U.P. reported in 1999 CRLJ
4101", wherein it is held that the reasons
are required to be recorded, while the
complaint is being dismissed under
Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., while the
same are not required under Section 204
of the Cr.P.C. and also referring to the
decision of "Mehmood ul Rehman Vs.
Khazir Mohammad Tunda (2015) 12
SCC 420" the Court held as under:-

"20. In para (21) of Mehmood Ali
Rehman, this Court has made a fine
distinction between taking cognizance
based upon charge sheet filed by the
police under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
and a private complaint under Section
190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and held as under:-

"21. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC,
the Magistrate has the advantage of a
police report and under Section 190(1)(c)
CrPC,
he has
the
information
or
knowledge of commission of an offence.
But under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he has
only a complaint before him. The Code
hence specifies that "a complaint of facts
which constitute such offence". Therefore,
if the complaint, on the face of it, does not
disclose the commission of any offence,
the Magistrate shall not take cognizance
under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC. The
complaint is simply to be rejected."

21 . In summoning the accused,
it is not necessary for the Magistrate to
examine the merits and demerits of the
case and whether the materials collected
is adequate for supporting the conviction.
The court is not required to evaluate the
evidence and its merits. The standard to
be adopted for summoning the accused
under Section 204 Cr.P.C. is not the same
at the time of framing the charge. For
issuance of summons under Section 204
Cr.P.C., the expression used is "there is
sufficient ground for proceeding?..";
whereas for framing the charges, the
expression used in Sections 240 and 246
IPC is "there is ground for presuming 16
that the accused has committed an
offence?..". At the stage of taking
cognizance of the offence based upon a
police report and for issuance of
summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C.,
detailed enquiry regarding the merits and
demerits of the case is not required. The
fact that after investigation of the case,
the police has filed charge sheet along
with the materials thereon may be
considered as sufficient ground for
proceeding for issuance of summons
under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

22.
In
so
far
as
taking
cognizance based on the police report, the
Magistrate has the advantage of the
charge sheet, statement of witnesses and
other evidence collected by the police
during the investigation. Investigating
Officer/SHO
collects
the
necessary
evidence
during
the
investigation
conducted
in
compliance
with
the
provisions of the Criminal Procedure
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code and in accordance with the rules of
investigation. Evidence and materials so
collected are sifted at the level of the
Investigating
Officer
and
thereafter,
charge sheet was filed. In appropriate
cases, opinion of the Public Prosecutor is
also obtained before filing the charge
sheet. The court thus has the advantage of
the police report along with the materials
placed before it by the police. Under
Section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C., where the
Magistrate has taken cognizance of an
offence upon a police report and the
Magistrate is satisfied that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, the
Magistrate directs issuance of process. In
case of taking cognizance of an offence
based upon the police report, the
Magistrate is not required to record
reasons for issuing the process. In cases
instituted
on
a
police
report,
the
Magistrate is only required to pass an
order issuing summons to the accused.
Such an order of issuing summons to the
accused is based upon subject to
satisfaction of the Magistrate considering
the police report and other documents
and satisfying himself that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. In a case based upon the
police report, at the stage of issuing the
summons to the accused, the Magistrate is
not required to record any reason. In
case, if the charge sheet is barred by law
or where there is lack of jurisdiction or
when the charge sheet is rejected or not
taken on file, then the Magistrate is
required to record his reasons for
rejection of the charge sheet and for not
taking on file."(Emphasis Mine).

21. It is apparent from the above
mentioned Case Laws specifically the
decision of the Supreme Court passed in
Afroz Mohammad's case (supra) that
after investigation of the case, if the
police has filed a charge-sheet along with
the materials there on may be considered
as sufficient ground for proceeding, for
issuance of summon under Section 204 of
the Cr.P.C., keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of particular case. In case
instituted
on
a
police
report,
the
Magistrate is required to pass an order of
issuing summons on the basis of his
subjective
satisfaction
arrived
after
consideration of the police report and
other documents sent with it, after
satisfying itself that there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding further. In the
facts and circumstances of instant case,
the allegations of the FIR has been
corroborated by the informant as well as
her husband in their statement recorded
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The
allegations of the FIR are further
corroborated with the injury reports of
both i.e. informant and her husband Raju.
Therefore, it could not be said that, there
was no sufficient material before the
Special Judge for taking cognizance and
issue summons against the appellants, so
far as the arguments, pertaining to the fact
that, it has not been anywhere stated by
the informant that, she belongs to a
scheduled caste, the same is negatived
when we peruse the FIR, wherein it has
been
specifically
mentioned
that,
informant is a lady and belongs to a
Scheduled Caste (Kori).

22. Keeping in view the above
mentioned settled legal position as well as
the factual matrix, I do not find any
substance in the appeal preferred by the
appellants. There appears no illegality in
the impugned summoning order dated
08.03.2019 of the Court below, where by
the appellants have been summoned to
face
trial.
2 All. Jagdish & Anr. Vs State of U.P.
325

23. In this view of the matter, the
appeal appears to be devoid of merits and
is dismissed and order dated 08.03.2019,
whereby
the
appellants
have
been
summoned to face trial is passed by the
IInd Additional Session Judge/Special
Judge SC/ST Act, Gonda is hereby
affirmed.

24. At this stage it is submitted by
Ld. Counsel for the Appellants that it is
apprehended that the moment appellants
will surrender before the trial Court they
will be sent to prison and disposal of their
bail Application may take time. Therefore
a suitable direction be issued to decide
their bail application in a time bound
manner. Needless to say that disposal of
bail Applications in any case is the
prerogative and discretion of the Court
concerned and the same can not be
circumcised by passing any order in this
regard. Suffice is to say that since
appellant is willing to participate in the
trial, it is directed that in case the
appellants appear and surrender before the
court below within 30 days from today
and apply for bail, their prayer for bail
may
be
considered
and
decided
expeditiously in view of law laid by this
Court in the case of Amrawati and
another Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2004 (57) ALR 290 as approved by
Hon'ble Apex Court in "Lal Kamlendra
Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (3)
ADJ 332 (SC) as well as the guidelines
issued in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of
India (UOI) and Ors. reported in
MANU/SC/0274/2017 and Brahm Singh
and others Vs. State of U.P & others in
(Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15609
of 2016 decided on 08.07.2016)".

25. For a period of 30 days form
today or till the surrender of appellants
before trial court, whichever is earlier, no
coercive steps shall be taken against the
appellants in the above mentioned case. It
is stated that this period of 30 days shall
not be further extended in any case.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 325

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1989

Jagdish & Anr. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri N.I. Jafri, Sri Mohd. Asif

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Amit Sinha.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302
- Appeal against conviction.

Exception 4 of 300 IPC can be invoked if death
is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a
sudden fight, (c) without offenders having
taken undue advantage, (d) accused had not
acted in a cruel or unusual manner. (Para 21)

Doctrine of grave and sudden provocation
depends on the facts of each case; it cannot
be universally applied. (Para 23)

It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal
application that whenever death occurs on
account of single blow, section 302 IPC is
ruled out. It is the totality of established facts
and circumstances, events preceding the
incident which will determine whether an act is
culpable homicide or murder. (Para 24)