Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY S. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Bishnu Yadav, S/o Late Shri Phattelal Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2016
Decided on : 09-01-2024
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 and Section 307 of IPC - [IPC Section 302, IPC Section 307, IPC Section 309] - The court affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and that the appellant was the author of the crime. The court considered the sustained provocation and held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC, converting his conviction under Section 302 of IPC to that of Part-I of Section 304 of IPC. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Part-I of Section 304 (2-Times) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. The conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 307 (2-Times) and 309 of IPC and the sentences awarded thereunder were maintained. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant administered poison to his son and daughter, causing their death, and also attempted to cause death of his younger daughter and mother. The prosecution established the appellant's distress and disappointment due to financial crisis and domestic dispute as the motive for the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and that the appellant was the author of the crime. The court considered the sustained provocation and held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC, converting his conviction under Section 302 of IPC to that of Part-I of Section 304 of IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's case would fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC, considering the sustained provocation as the motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the sustained provocation and held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC, converting his conviction under Section 302 of IPC to that of Part-I of Section 304 of IPC.
Final Decision: The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Part-I of Section 304 (2-Times) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. The conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 307 (2-Times) and 309 of IPC and the sentences awarded thereunder were maintained. All the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the present criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed by the appellant herein calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.3.2016 passed by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Case No.130/2014 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner :-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. U/s 302 (2-Times) of IPC | Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months, on each count. |
| 2. U/s 307 (2-Times) of IPC | R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 2 months, on each count. |
| 3. U/s 309 of IPC | S.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional S.I. for 7 days. |
| All sentences have been directed to run concurrently | |
2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court are that on 24.2.2014 at Village Bazarpara under Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, the appellant herein administered insecticide/ poisonous substance to his son Harish and daughter Durga causing their death and also attempted to cause death of his younger daughter, Ku. Khushbu (PW-4) and mother, Malti (PW-2) by administering the said poisonous substance to them as well and further he also attempted to commit suicide by consuming the said poisonous substance; thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant used to work as mason. Deceased Harish, aged about 10 years and deceased Durga, aged about 8 years, were his son and daughter. Ku. Khushbu (PW-4), who was aged about 2 years at the time of incident, is his younger daughter and Malti (PW-2), aged about 55 years, is his mother. PW-5 Manish is his elder son. They were all residing together in Village Bazarpara at Kharora. On account of some domestic dispute, the appellant's wife, Anita, is said to have deserted him and was residing separately with her parents at her parental home from one year prior to the date of incident. The appellant is also said to have lent some money to Samaru (PW-8), Prahalad (PW-11), Suresh (PW-16) and other persons and they were not returning money to the appellant. On account of the said reasons, the appellant was distressed and he was also suffering from great financial crisis and extremely disappointed with his life.
4. According to the prosecution, on 24.2.2014 at about 4:00 p.m., the appellant had brought liquor, sweet (rasgulla) and sugarcane juice (ganna-ras) and mixed insecticide/poisonous substance in the liquor and rasgulla and administered rasgulla to his son Harish, daughters Durga and Ku. Khusbu (PW-4) and also administered liquor to his mother Malti (PW-2) and he himself consumed liquor. Thereafter, they all became unconscious. PW-5 Manish, the elder son of the appellant, had fortunately not eaten rasgulla and therefore he was well. He had informed about the incident to the tenants residing nearby and then ambulance was called and all of them were hospitalized in Krishna Hospital at Kharora where Harish and Durga were declared brought dead. Ku. Khusbu (PW-4), Malti (PW-2) and the appellant were taken to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur for better treatment and they became well after treatment for a fairly long time.
5. Merg Intimations regarding the death of Harish and Durga were recorded vide Exhibits P-1 & P-2 on the report of PW-1 Rajkumar, the landlord of the appellant. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Exhibits P-5 & P-6 and the dead-bodies of Harish and Durga were subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. Pankaj Kishore (PW-17) vide Exhibits P-31 & P-32 in w
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, specifically the concept of sustained provocation, and its impact on the appellant's conv....
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Act of provocation and loss of self-control, must be actual and reasonable.
The court established that a homicide can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed under grave and sudden provocation, emphasizing the importance of context and the acc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC, regarding grave and sudden provocation, in determining the appellant's guilt for murder.
The court ruled that the appellant's actions were provoked by the victim's threats, justifying a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The court ruled that actions taken under grave and sudden provocation can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing it from murder under 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
