Back
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
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.
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
Unintentional homicide is not murder under Section 302, IPC.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the intention and knowledge of the accused in causing the death of the deceased, and the application of relevant case laws to ....
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intention to kill in a sudden quarrel can lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
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
