Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2021
Decided On : 11-02-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Action of appellant-accused to push deceased down and stood up on his abdomen was preceded by a quarrel between deceased and accused – From evidence on record, and even as per case of prosecution, it cannot be said that appellant-accused had intention of such action on his part to cause death or such bodily injury to deceased which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased – Even case would not fall under clause 3 of Section 300 IPC – In facts and circumstances of case, it cannot be said that there was any intention on part of accused of causing bodily injury to deceased and bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – There is no evidence that there was any premeditation on part of accused – There was a sudden quarrel with respect to money and accused pushed deceased and stood on abdomen in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel – Case would fall under exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – It is immaterial in such cases which party offers provocation or commits first assault – Both courts below have materially erred in holding appellant-accused guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC – At the most, it can be said that appellant-accused has committed offence under Section 304-I IPC – Deceased was admitted to hospital after 24 hours and thereafter he died within three days due to septicemia – If he was given treatment immediately, result might have been different – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court as well as judgment and order passed by trial Court convicting appellant-accused for offence under Section 302, IPC, modified to the extent convicting appellant-accused for offence under Section 304-I, IPC and sentencing him to period already undergone by him i.e. 14.5 years – Rest of judgment and order passed by trial Court, confirmed by High Court, hereby confirmed. (Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2009, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant-original accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and by which the appellant-accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, the appellant-original accused has preferred the present appeal. Sole question which is posed before this Court is, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, can it be said that the accused committed the murder of the deceased as defined under Section 300 IPC and therefore whether both the courts below rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC or whether the conviction can be altered to Section 304-I, IPC.
Findings of Court:
Deceased was admitted to the hospital after 24 hours and thereafter he died within three days due to septicaemia. If he was given the treatment immediately, the result might have been different.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2009, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant-original accused and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and by which the appellant-accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, the appellant-original accused has preferred the present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by order dated 08.01.2021, this Court issued a limited notice confined to whether the conviction should be altered to Section 304-I IPC. Therefore, the present appeal is confined to the issue, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant-accused should be altered to Section 304-I, IPC or not.
3. While deciding the aforesaid issue/question, the case of the prosecution and the manner in which the incident took place are required to be considered. According to the prosecution, on 08.08.2006 at about 6:30 p.m. the deceased was in the house of his neighbour Devan. At that very time, the accused had conversation with him regarding money and then accused quarrelled with him. The accused pushed him down and stood up on his abdomen and crushed. On the next day, i.e. on 09.08.2006 at about 6:30 p.m. son of one Channu Ram informed Manki, sister of Manku regarding the severe pain in the abdomen of Manku. Manki, sister of the deceased came to his house and after seeing him got him admitted in N.M.D.C. Apollo Central Hospital, Bacheli for treatment. On the night of 09.08.2006 itself, he was referred to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur for treatment. During treatment, Manku Ram died on 11.08.2006. As per the post mortem report conducted by Dr. J. Gupta (PW-3) the cause of death of the deceased Manku Ram was shock as a result of septicemia caused by injuries in small intestine.
4. In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is required to be considered what offence the accused is said to have committed. The learned trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC after observing and finding that the case would fall under Section 300 IPC and that the murder of Manku Ram committed by the accused does not come under the fourth exception of Section 300 IPC. Accordingly, after holding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, the learned trial Court has awarded the life sentence to the accused. The same has been confirmed by the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has vehemently submitted that in the present case the incident took place on 08.08.2006. There was a sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased and the accused pushed the deceased and sat on the abdomen. It is submitted that there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause death of the deceased. It is submitted that though the incident had taken place on 08.08.2006 at about 6:30 p.m. the deceased was taken to the hospital on the next day, i.e. on 09.08.2006 at about 6:30 p.m. It is submitted that thereafter after a period of two days, the deceased died because of septicemia. It is submitted that therefore the case would fall under the fourth exception of Section 300 IPC and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant-accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is submitted that the accused at the best be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-I, IPC. It is submitted that the accused has already undergone 14.5 years of actual imprisonment.
5.1 Making the above submissions and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjay vs. State of U.P. (2016) 3 SCC 62, it is prayed to alter the conviction of the
Unintentional homicide committed in a sudden quarrel without any premeditation is not murder.
The court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, establishing that the incident arose from sudden provocation and was not premeditated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and the conversion of the appellant's conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I of....
Culpable homicide is not murder if committed in a fit of passion during a sudden quarrel, as determined by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
The court held that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of premeditation and presence of heat of passion.
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The appellate court modified the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC, recognizing the absence of premeditation and intention to kill during a sudden altercation influenced by the accused's....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
