IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, JJ.
Punitram Katre S/o Ramcharan Katre - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1526 of 2015
Decided on : 13-10-2023
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 of IPC - [Section 299, Section 300, Section 302, Section 304A] - The court analyzed the definition of culpable homicide, the importance of proving homicidal death, and the testimonies of eye-witnesses to determine the intention of the accused. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's intention to cause death or bodily injury, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under Section 302 of IPC and conviction under Section 304A of IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a bus driver, was convicted for causing the death of a woman in a scooter accident. The prosecution alleged that the appellant intentionally dashed the scooter, leading to the woman's death. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC based on the testimonies of eye-witnesses and the established motive of the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's intention to cause death or bodily injury, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under Section 302 of IPC and conviction under Section 304A of IPC. The delay in recording the statements of the eye-witnesses and the lack of concrete evidence regarding the alleged harassment and motive further weakened the prosecution's case.
Issues: The key issues revolved around proving the intention of the appellant in causing the woman's death, establishing the motive of the offence, and assessing the reliability of the testimonies of the eye-witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove the appellant's intention to cause death or bodily injury, the lack of concrete evidence regarding the alleged harassment and motive, and the unreliable testimonies of the eye-witnesses due to delays in recording their statements.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, the conviction under Section 302 of IPC was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 304A of IPC. The appellant, having already undergone the maximum sentence, was ordered to be released forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the appellant herein against the impugned judgment dated 27/11/2015 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions Trial No. 38/2014 whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional S.I. for six months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 17/04/2014 at about 8 PM, appellant, being a Driver, while driving a bus bearing registration No. CG 04 E 0679, dashed Smt. Chandrika Joshi while she was riding her scooter Pleasure bearing registration No. CG 04 CX 5883 and her son Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7) was sitting as a pillion rider and due to that, Smt. Chandrika Joshi suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that appellant had developed one-sided liking for deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi and he used to harass her as per the statements of Puran Das Joshi (P.W.-3), husband of the deceased and Yashmin Joshi (P.W.-4) and Nilofar (P.W.-5), daughters of the deceased and since deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi did not like it as she was already married and had three children, therefore, appellant was holding a grudge and on the date of offence, he deliberately dashed her scooter with the intention of causing her death. Immediately thereafter, appellant drove his bus and stationed it at Police Chowki, Bhatgaon. One Rajkumar Sonwani (P.W.-6) informed Akshay Kumar Jatwar (P.W.-1) that her relative Smt. Chandrika Joshi has met with an accident who then lodged first information report against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC vide Ex. P/1 and thereafter, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/2. Merg intimation was registered vide Ex. P/12 and after conducting inquest vide Ex. P/6, the dead body of Smt. Chandrika Joshi was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Pushpendra Vaishnav (P.W.-16) and as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/21), cause of death is said to be excessive blood loss and cardiovascular and cardiorespiratory arrest and no definite opinion with regard to nature of death has been given. Vikas Joshi (P.W.-7), who was sitting as a pillion rider with his mother deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi, was also medically examined by Dr. Narayan Sahu (P.W.-12) and as per MLC report (Ex. P/17), he had suffered simple injuries. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex. P/13 and his driving license and his mobile phone were seized vide Ex. P/14. The seized bus and scooter were mechanically examined vide Ex. P/24. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence.
4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and only brought 1 document on record.
5. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid holding that death of deceased Smt. Chandrika Joshi was not accidental in nature as the appellant had dashed her with his bus with the intention of causing his death by which she suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot, as such, it was homicidal death and also finding the motive of offence proved by Puran Das Joshi (P.W.-3), Yashmin Joshi (P.W.-4) and Nilofar (P.W.-5).
6. Mr. T.K. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 30
Chenda @ Chanda Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh
M.B. Suresh v. State of Karnataka
Peddireddy Subbareddi and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Rupinder Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab and others
Shobhau alias Shubhau v. State of M.P., 1998 CrLJ 3934
State of Karnataka v. Venkatesh and others
AI
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on intention and circumstances, with the court applying Exception-4 of Section 300 IPC in cases of sudden quarrel.
The court affirmed a conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing reliance on eyewitness testimony and the sufficiency of direct evidence over the need for motive in murder cases.
Point of Law : Deceased and Appellant were both inebriated and the quarrel between them was sudden and heated, it cannot be reasonably said that the Appellant has acted in an unusual manner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing the nature of death (homicidal or accidental) and the relevance of witness testimonies in criminal cases.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder hinges on the offender's intention, with insufficient evidence of intent leading to a reduced sentence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.