Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
RAJIV SHARMA, ASHA ARORA, JJ.
Budhu Singh Sardar – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A 335 of 2000
Decided On : 12-07-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya
For the Respondent: Mr. Sudip Ghosh, Mr. Pratick Bose
The court held that the requirements of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC were satisfied in the present case, and therefore the appellant was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Headnote:
MURDER - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - SECTION 300 EXCEPTION 4, IPC - SUDDEN FIGHT, NO PREMEDITATION, HEAT OF PASSION, NO UNDUE ADVANTAGE OR CRUELTY - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 302 IPC SET ASIDE, CONVICTED UNDER SECTION 304 PART I IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Abala Singh Sardar and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Budhu Singh Sardar, came to the complainant's house and demanded rice and money. When the complainant refused, the appellant returned in the evening with another person and started abusing the complainant and his family. When the deceased victims, Kalachand Singh Sardar and Abala Singh Sardar, objected, the appellant shot an arrow at Abala Singh Sardar, causing her death. The appellant claimed that the incident was the result of a quarrel and that he did not intend to kill the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the appellant was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 300 Exception 4 of the IPC. The court found that the appellant had not acted with premeditation, that the act was committed in the heat of passion, and that the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The court also noted that there was no evidence of any enmity or predetermined motive to commit the offence.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC was justified. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC because: (i) the offence was committed without premeditation; (ii) the act was done in the heat of passion; (iii) the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner; and (iv) there was no evidence of any enmity or predetermined motive to commit the offence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
Asha Arora, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 24th August, 2000 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 1999 arising out of Sessions Case No.33 of 1998 whereby the appellant/accused Budhu Singh Sardar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short referred to as the IPC) and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of which he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months for the aforesaid offence.
2. Prosecution version sans unnecessary details is that on 26th March 1994 at 00:25 hours one Fakir Singh Sardar of Village-Kultanr, P.S.- Boro, District- Purulia lodged a written complaint at Boro P.S. alleging that on 25th March 1994 his uncle Budhu Singh Sardar (appellant) came to him for some rice and money. As the complainant was busy, he told the accused/appellant to come later. It is the further case of prosecution that the appellant returned home in the evening with Biswanath Singh Sardar and at about 22:00 hours he started abusing in filthy language. Kalachand Singh Sardar and his wife Abala Singh Sardar (deceased victims) opposed whereupon the appellant shot an arrow in the chest of Abala Singh Sardar. Due to fear the complainant rushed to his house. After sometime complainant came out on hearing a loud sound and found Kalachand Singh Sardar lying dead with gun shot injury.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint of Fakir Singh Sardar (PW-1), S.I. Kalibaran Ghosh (PW-15) registered Boro P.S. Case No. 15/94 dated 26-03-1994 under Section 302 of IPC and 25/27 of the Arms Act against the accused/appellant Budhu Singh Sardar. Investigation into the case culminated in the submission of the charge sheet under Section 302/34 of the IPC against accused/appellant Budhu Singh Sardar and Biswanath Singh Sardar.
4. The case being a Sessions triable one was committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Purulia for trial and disposal. Charge was framed against both the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for committing the murder of deceased Kalachand Singh Sardar and Abala Singh Sardar. Each of the accused pleaded not guilty to the indictment and claimed to be tried. In course of trial prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited several documents. The defence of the accused before the Trial Court was innocence and complete denial of the prosecution story. After conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Judge, by the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2000, convicted the accused/appellant Budhu Singh Sardar for the murder of deceased Abala Singh Sardar and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months for the charge under Section 302 of the IPC while accused Biswanath Singh Sardar and Budhu Singh Sardar were acquitted from the charge under Section 302/34 of the IPC for causing the murder of deceased Kalachand Singh Sardar.
5. The point for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant Budhu Singh Sardar for the charge under Section 302 of the IPC is sustainable.
6. Before proceeding to advert to the evidence led by prosecution in support of its case, it is significant to mention that learned Counsel appearing for the appellant mainly argued that the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C. attributed to the accused/appellant is not justified. According to him, the appellant’s case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C. Learned Counsel submitted that there was no intention to kill and the incident was the outcome of quarrel. So the appropriate offence for which the appellant can be held liable is one under section 304 of the IPC.
7. Learned Advocate representing the State/respondent countered that it is a clear case of murder as four
