SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
ARJUN AND ANR. ETC. ETC. – Appellants
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 206-207 OF 2017
Decided On : 14-02-2017
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 330, Exception 4 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Weapons were used during altercation in a sudden fight and there was no pre-meditation – Injuries as reflected in post-mortem report also suggest that appellants have not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner – In the fact situation, exception (4) under Section 300 IPC is attracted – Incident took place in a sudden fight as such appellants are entitled to benefit under Section 300 exception (4) IPC – When and if there is intent and knowledge, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part I IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part II IPC. Injuries. (Paras 22 and 23)
(C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Where prosecution case rests upon evidence of a related witness, court shall scrutinize evidence with care as a rule of prudence and not as a rule of law – Fact of witness being related to victim or deceased does not by itself discredit evidence. (Para 11)
Facts of case:
Murder committed in course of land feud. Instant appeals arise out of judgment and order passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal whereby High Court affirmed conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by trial Court on appellants.
Findings of Court:
When and if there is intent and knowledge, then the same would be a case of Section 304 Part I IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part II IPC. Injuries/incised wound caused on head i.e. right parietal region and right temporal region and also occipital region, injuries indicate that appellants had intention and knowledge to cause injuries and thus it would be a case falling under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
R. Banumathi, J.
These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal Nos.111 of 2008 and 100 of 2008 whereby the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial Court on the appellants.
2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2006 at about 9:45 a.m., deceased Ayodhya Prasad @ Rahasu had gone to his field alongwith Bajrang Manjhi (PW-1), Borri Verma (PW-2), Gilli Raout (PW-7) and Makunda Raout (PW-8) to cut tree with the help of the above persons which was on his land in village Ghatmadwa. At that time, the appellants-accused came to the field and they stopped the deceased and his labourers from cutting the tree. Deceased Ayodhya Prasad @ Rahasu told the appellants that he was the owner of the tree, therefore, he was cutting the tree which resulted in quarrel between the parties. The appellants assaulted the deceased with katta, gandasa and stone. The deceased fell down and sustained injuries on his head and his brain matter came out. He was taken to Bilaspur for treatment but he died on the way to the hospital.
3. Shivprasad (PW-6), brother of the deceased lodged the complaint in Police Outpost Gidhouri. Based on the complaint, FIR (Ex.P-16) was registered in Police Station Bilaigarh. PW-10, the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence and took up the investigation. After the inquest, the body was sent for autopsy. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Harnath Verma (PW-12) who gave the Post Mortem Report (Ex.P-26). Dr. Verma opined that the death of the deceased was due to excessive haemorrhage and injury to the head.
4. PW-10, the Investigating Officer arrested the appellants from the Gidhouri Bus Stand and recorded their statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Disclosure statement of the appellants led to the discovery of iron katta (cutting object), gandasa and stone weighing 12.5 kg which were seized from Lalaram @ Bhagat, Arjun and Padumlal respectively. Sando baniyan and full-pant of appellant Lalaram @ Bhagat were also seized. Seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination vide Ex.P-23. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Balodabazar, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Raipur, from where it was received on transfer by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Raipur, who conducted the trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses. Bajrang Manjhi (PW-1), Borri Verma (PW-2), Gilli Raout (PW-7) and Makunda Raout (PW-8) are the eye-witnesses, PW-6 Shivprasad is the complainant and brother of the deceased Rahasu. Constable Gandlal (PW-4), Constable M.R. Sinha (PW-9) and Constable Bhojram (PW-11) were involved in recording the statement and collection of evidence, PW-10 Deen Bandhu Uaikey is the Investigating Officer and PW-12 Dr. Harnath Verma is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances, the accused denied all of them. The accused pleaded that the deceased Ayodhya Prasad attempted to take possession of the land of the accused by force and, therefore, they acted in self-defence of their body and property. To substantiate their defence plea, the accused have examined DW-1 Shrawan Kumar and DW-2 Dwarika Prasad.
6. Having considered the evidence of the witnesses and the defence plea and the material placed before it, the trial court held that the appellants acted with common intention to commit the murder of deceased Ayodhya Prasad and found that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC or 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and
Mano Dutt and Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 79 – Relied.
Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2010) 10 SCC 439 – Relied.
Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450 – Relied.
Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 13 SCC 271 – Relied.
Rajendra v. State of U.P. (2009) 13 SCC 480 – Relied.
Mrinal Das and Ors. vs. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479 – Relied.
Surinder Kumar vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (1989) 2 SCC 217 – Relied.
Arumugam vs. State, Rrepresented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.