Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 995
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Devendra Kumar & Ors. – Appellant
VERSUS
State Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2015
Decided On : 06-11-2024
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ravi Kumar Sharma, D.A.G. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Singh, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Unintentional homicide is not murder.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1)] and 109 read with Section 3(5)] – Murder and attempt to murder – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – In view of credible testimony of eyewitnesses, no reason to interfere with finding of trial court as well as High Court that it is on account of injuries caused by appellants that deceased had died – There was previous enmity between parties – Accused persons were in possession of land in question – There was quarrel between appellants and deceased – Weapons used by accused persons are axe and sticks which are commonly used by agriculturists – There is no material on record to show that there is any premeditation – Possibility of offence being committed by appellants without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out – From nature of injuries sustained by deceased, it cannot be said that appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt and conviction under Section 302 IPC needs to be altered to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC – Conviction of appellants under Section 302 IPC altered to one under Part I of Section 304 IPC and sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Paras 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Trial court convicted appellants under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Being aggrieved thereby, appellants preferred Criminal Appeal before High Court. High Court vide impugned judgment and order dismissed Criminal Appeal and confirmed conviction and sentence awarded by trial court.
Findings of Court:
Appellants have already undergone a sentence of more than 12 years prior to their release on bail by order of this Court dated 17th February 2015. Said sentence would subserve ends of justice. Therefore, appellants are sentenced to period already undergone.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2004 whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal preferred by the present appellants and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 17th October, 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kawardha (CG)1[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’.] in S.T. No. 50 of 2003.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:-
2.1 On 20th December 2002, at about 11 a.m., a complaint was lodged by one Dhannu Das (PW-2), the shopkeeper of a betel shop at Village Chhirha who had witnessed an incident near his shop wherein the appellants had assaulted the deceased, namely Bahal, with lathis, a rod and an axe after making a threat that they would kill him. On the receipt of the complaint, the Police Station at Kawardha registered a First Information Report2 [“FIR” for short] being Crime No. 262 of 2002 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 [“IPC” for short] against the appellants.
2.2 Pertinently, prior to the occurrence of the incident which ultimately led to this criminal appeal, a land dispute relating to certain agricultural land and crops therein was pending between the families of the present appellants and the deceased. In the pending lis, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had passed an order in Criminal Case No. 216 of 2003 titled Bahalram v. Devendra on 17th December 2002, thereby closing the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of the order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, directing the maintenance of status quo in respect of the agricultural fields which were in the possession of the present appellants.
2.3 According to the prosecution story, at about 9 a.m. on 20th December 2002, Rajni Bai (PW-1) and her son Bahal, the deceased, reached Village Chhirha, having walked their way from Kawardha. Upon reaching Village Chhirha, the deceased stopped near the betel shop of Dhannu Das (PW-2). The deceased was showing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 17th December 2002 to Ghurwaram Patel (PW-4), the Sarpanch of Village Chhirha, when the present appellants arrived at the scene. Appellant No.1-Devendra and Appellant No. 2-Rohit were armed with lathis whereas Appellant No. 3-Banauram was carrying an axe and Appellant No.4-Kuleshwar was carrying a rod. After warning the deceased that they would kill him that day since he always quarreled in the land matter and created litigation, the appellants engaged in a mar-peet with the deceased, resulting in several injuries being caused to the deceased. On seeing this, Rajni Bai (PW-1) intervened which led the appellants to fight with her as well whereupon she sustained several injuries as well. On the same day, at about 1:15 p.m., during the course of the treatment, the deceased succumbed to his injuries.
2.4 Subsequently, the post-mortem was conducted wherein it was concluded that cause of death was coma caused by internal haemorrhage which was in turn caused by a fracture in the head leading to a brain injury.
2.5 Upon the conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same came to be committed to the trial court.
2.6 Charges came to be filed by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and in the alternate, Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
2.7 The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellants. In their defence, the appellants denied the charges and stated that they had been falsely implicated owing to the agricultural land dispute.
2.8 At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found that the prosec
