1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC for causing death by assaulting a spouse with fists and a stone during a sudden quarrel. (Para 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 377
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Kariman – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhatisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2193 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). ..... of 2024) (Diary No. 24868/2023)
Decided On : 22-04-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR (SCLSC) Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kavya Jawhar, Adv. Mr. Virendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nadini Rai, Adv. Ms. Ankhi Sarkar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.A.G. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pahlad Singh Sharma, AOR (SCLSC) Mr. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Kavya Jawhar, Adv. Mr. Virendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Nadini Rai, Adv. Ms. Ankhi Sarkar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.A.G. Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Parmod Kumar Vishnoi, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302, IPC.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302 – Murder of wife – Life sentence – Appellant and deceased were living together as husband and wife by virtue of prevailing customary practices – Genesis behind incident was not divulged by any of prosecution witnesses – Informant did not utter a single word in his evidence that his niece who was living with appellant was ever treated with cruelty by accused – Both accused as well as deceased used to consume liquor – Appellant had no motive to hurt deceased and some sudden quarrel had flared up between accused and deceased which led to incident – Accused had no intention to cause injury/injuries to victim with intention or knowledge that same would result into her death – Act of accused is not covered by any of four clauses contained in Section 300 IPC – Act of accused is covered under Part II of Section 304 IPC – Conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC modified and altered to that under Part II of Section 304 IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone (17 Years). (Paras 14, 17, 18, 19 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th June, 2016 passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 712 of 2003 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected and judgment and order dated 30th October, 2001 rendered by Trial Court, convicting appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, was affirmed.
Findings of Court:
Appellant has already undergone sentence for about 17 years. Appellant is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the act constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Absence of motive, the nature of the single injury, and lack of intention to cause death indicate the act resulted from a sudden quarrel. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 20 )
4. An act committed with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death, constitutes culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC. (Para 19 )
5. Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC; sentence reduced to seven years; appellant ordered released. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
6. When is a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC?
When the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and does not fall under the four clauses of Section 300 IPC. (Para 18 , 19 )
7. How does medical evidence regarding the nature of an injury influence the determination of intention under Section 300 IPC?
If medical evidence shows a single injury and the medical jurist does not opine that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it supports a finding that the accused lacked the intention to kill. (Para 17 , 20 )
8. How do the absence of motive and the occurrence of a sudden quarrel affect the classification of an offence?
The absence of motive and the fact that an incident arose from a sudden quarrel, particularly where the accused was initially unarmed, suggest a lack of premeditated intention to cause death, shifting the offence from murder to culpable homicide. (Para 14 , 15 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. This special leave petition filed on behalf of the accused petitioner is delayed by 2461 days.
2. It is specifically mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay that the accused petitioner was prevented from filing the special leave petition in time because he was not aware regarding the legal procedure and no guidance was provided to him in jail. While being incarcerated in jail, the petitioner came to know about legal aid being provided by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and accordingly, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and consequently, a free legal aid counsel was appointed by the Committee to defend the petitioner and to file the special leave petition on his behalf.
3. The delay in filing of the special leave petition is thus, condoned.
4. Leave granted.
5. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th June, 2016 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 712 of 2003 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected and judgment and order dated 30th October, 2001 rendered by the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja(C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No. 359/99, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, was affirmed.
6. As per the prosecution case, deceased Dasmet Bai was living with the appellant as his second wife. It is alleged that on 11th September, 1999 at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant assaulted Dasmet Bai by fists and stones and thereby, caused her death. Budhram(PW-2), the uncle of the deceased Dasmet Bai lodged a report of the incident at the Kusmi Police Station on the very same day, at about 5.20 p.m., on the basis of which an FIR(Exhibit P-6) being Crime No. 61/99 came to be registered against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The usual process of investigation was started. Inquest was conducted on the dead body and thereafter, the same was sent for post mortem. Dr. R.K. Tripathi(PW-11) conducted autopsy upon the dead body of Dasmet Bai and issued the post mortem report(Exhibit P-24) taking note of a bruise admeasuring 10 cm X 8 cm on the posterio lateral aspect of left side of the body over 5th to 10th ribs area. The 8th rib was found fractured underneath this injury which led to laceration of spleen causing hypovolemic shock and proved fatal.
7. Charge sheet was filed against the appellant after conclusion of investigation and the case upon committal was sent to the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja on transfer. The accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Eleven witnesses were examined and relevant documents were exhibited by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein he denied the circumstances as appearing against him in the prosecution case and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence.
8. As stated above, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as above and the appeal preferred against conviction was rejected by the High Court vide judgment dated 27th June, 2016, which is assailed in the present appeal.
9. Vide order dated 21st July, 2023 this Court issued limited notice to examine whether the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC could be converted either to Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC.
10. Shri Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel representing the appellant contended that even if the allegations set out in the deposition of the prosecution eye-witnesses[Tara Bai(PW-4), Thouli Bai(PW-5) and Lalo Bai(PW-6)] are taken into account, apparently some sudden dispute
