Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY S. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Krishna Pandey, Son of Ram Vilas Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2016
Decided on : 21-11-2023
Conviction - Offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC - [CRIMINAL APPEAL] - [CONVICTION] - [Section 302, Section 34 of IPC] - The court affirmed the finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the accused-appellants caused injuries over the body of the deceased based on the dying declaration and other evidence. The court also considered the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and altered the conviction to Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of IPC, leading to the release of the appellants from jail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC for causing burn injuries to the deceased, resulting in her death. The prosecution's case was based on the dying declaration of the deceased and other evidence, while the appellants denied their guilt and claimed innocence.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the findings of the trial court that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the appellants caused injuries over the body of the deceased, leading to her death. The court also considered the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and altered the conviction to Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of IPC, resulting in the release of the appellants from jail.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the death of the deceased, the involvement of the appellants in causing her injuries, and the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the dying declaration of the deceased and other evidence to affirm the findings of the trial court. It also considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2000 SC 3630, to alter the conviction of the appellants.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was set aside, and they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellants were released from jail based on the period already undergone by them.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
(1) These two criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., by two appellants herein, namely, Krishna Pandey (A-1) and Asha Bhoyar (A-2), are directed against a common impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.03.2016, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar in Sessions Trial No.04 of 2016, whereby they have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 11.09.2015, at about 07:00 AM, at Village Jaitgiri, Sukugudapara within the ambit of Outpost- Bakawand, Police Station Nagarnar, at the house of Asha Bhoyar (A-2), the two accused-appellants herein firstly shared common intention and, in furtherance thereof, Krishna Pandey (A-1) poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife, namely, Nirmala Pandey and Asha Bhoyar (A-2) lit the match-stick and set her ablaze, due to which Nirmala Pandey suffered burn injuries to the extent of 98% and died on 13.09.2015 during the course of her treatment at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur and, thereby, the appellants are said to have committed offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
(3) The further case of the prosecution is that Krishna Pandey (A-1) was married to Nirmala Pandey (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) but was also indulged in relationship with another woman, namely, Asha Bhoyar (A-2). The deceased suspected that her husband Krishna Pandey (A-1) was having illicit relationship with Asha Bhoyar (A-2) and, on that account, on the date of offence, when deceased caught her husband- Krishna Pandey (A-1) at the house of Asha Bhoyar (A-2), a dispute erupted between the deceased and her husband- Krishna Pandey (A-1), in which, as per the case of the prosecution, Krishna Pandey (A-1) poured kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and Asha Bhoyar (A-2) lit the match-stick and set her ablaze. However, when the deceased was burning, appellant-Krishna Pandey (A-1) extinguished the fire by pouring water and escorted her to the Community Health Center, Bakawand, where she was firstly treated and medically examined by Dr. R.K. Chaturvedi (PW-07), who gave MLC report (Ex.P/10) and referred her to the Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur for better treatment. Thereafter, the deceased was treated by Dr. V.K. Joshi (PW-08) at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, wherein her dying declaration (Ex.P/14) was recorded by Tehsildar, namely, R.S. Sidar (PW-11) in the presence of Dr. V.K. Joshi (PW-08), in which the deceased alleged both the appellants to be the author of the crime in question. However, the deceased succumbed to her injuries during the course of her treatment on 13.09.2015.
(4) Thereafter, the police registered FIR (Ex.P/15) under Section 154 of Cr.P.C and wheels of investigation started running, in which, inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/08 and summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/07. Spot map and Panchnama were also prepared vide Ex.P/03. ‘Dehati Nalishi’ was also prepared vide Ex.P/16-A. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem report (Ex.P/12) conducted by Dr. Pawan Tekade (PW-09), it was opined that the cause of death of deceased was due to burn injuries to the extent of 98%. Thereafter, the appellants were arrested vide Ex.P/18 & Ex.P/19 respectively. Property seizure memo was prepared vide Ex.P/04, whereby, burnt pieces of cloth, a bottle stinking kerosene oil and match-sticks were seized and same were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P/10 and FSL report was received confirming the traces of kerosene oil in the bottle and on the burnt pieces of cloth. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur and, ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accor
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, leading to the alteration of the appellants' conviction and their release from jail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles from relevant cases to determine the nature of the offence and the appropriate conviction and sentencing for th....
The court established that sudden provocation and lack of premeditation can allow conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, considering the absence of premeditation and the sudden outburst leading to the death, leadin....
The dying declaration and complaint were considered credible evidence, and the absence of a doctor's endorsement on the dying declaration was not considered significant. The court applied Section 106....
The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, affirming that the evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite claims of accidental death.
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
