Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, JJ.
Shatrughan Ram @ Shatrughan Ram Korva, S/o Shri Gulma Ram Korva – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh –Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1463 of 2023
Decided on : 07-12-2023
Exception 4 - Conviction under Section 302 of IPC - Section 304 Part-I of IPC - 302, 304 Part-I, 304 Part-II - The court affirmed the finding that the appellant caused injuries leading to the death of the deceased. The court considered the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and converted the conviction to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC based on the sudden fight, absence of premeditation, act committed in the heat of passion, and absence of undue advantage or cruel behavior. The court referred to legal principles from Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, State v. Sanjeev Nanda, Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh, Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for causing injuries leading to the death of the deceased during a family dispute over land. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed that the appellant caused the injuries resulting in the death of the deceased. It considered the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and converted the conviction to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant's actions fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, and if the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC could be converted to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments to determine the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and the conversion of the appellant's conviction.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was set aside, and he was convicted under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, J.
1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.05.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.11/2022, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.11.2021, complainant Indarmani Bai (PW-2) has lodged report against the appellant stating that the accused is her Nephew (Sasur Beta), he came their house on 04.11.2021 at about 5.00 pm and started quarrel with her husband due to their family partition meanwhile he assaulted to her husband namely Rukam Sai Korva by stick and the victim received injuries upon his head, after calling 112, victim was sent to Primary Health Centre, Sanna for his treatment, wherein, MLC was conducted by Dr. Sunil Kumar (PW-7) vide Ex.P-18 who found following injuries over the body of injured/victim :
(ii) A swollen wound on the left side of the head whose size was 2x1 inch.
Both the injuries caused to the victim must have been caused by some heavy and hard object. Seeing the condition of the patient, he advised to take him to a convenient place on the same date. Thereafter, the injured/victim was taken to District Hospital, Jashpur for treatment.
3. But, during the course of treatment injured/victim died on 05.11.2021. Thereafter, as per merg intimation (Ex.P-20) given by Indarmani Bai (PW-2), Crime No. 88/2021 has been registered against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC vide Ex.P-21 and accused/appellant was subsequently arrested on 06.11.2021 by police officers of Police Station – Bagicha, District – Jashpur (C.G.) vide arrest memo Ex.P-6. Investigating officer left for scene of occurrence and spot maps of the incident site were prepared vide Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-26. Visual map of the incident site (Ex.P-10) and Panchnama (Ex.P-11) were prepared by Patwari. Memorandum statement of accused was recorded vide Ex.P-8. Wooden plank was seized at the instance of accused vide Ex.P-5. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-7, inquest over the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-13. Dr. Mamta Singh (PW-1) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-1 and found following injuries:-
Swelling present over frontal region of forehead and ecchymosis found over his left eye. There was blood clot in this right nose and blood was leaking from his left nose. The mouth was closed, both fists partially closed, vomits containing food particles present over right shoulder and back right scapular region, urine present in undergarment, rigor mortis present in all limbs.
Dr. Mamta Singh (PW-1) opined that cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to head injury and nature of death will depend on circumstantial evidence and is matter of police investigation.
4. After due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jashpur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jashpur for trial. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 302 of the IPC, read over and explained to the accused, who abjured his guilt.
5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined following witnesses :-
2. PW-02 Indarmani
3. PW-03 Shankar Ram
4. PW-04 Sandip Kumar Bhagat
5. PW-05 Manraj Ram
6. PW-06 Rajendra Ram
7. PW-07 Dr. Sunil Kumar
8. PW-08 Janas Kerketta
9. PW-09 Ranjit Sai
8. PW-10 Pole Ram
9. PW-11 Anand Sai
10. PW-12 Suresh Kumar Ram
11. PW-13 Bharatlal Sahu
12. PW-14 Laxman Singh Dhurve
6. Besides aforesaid ocular evidence, prosecution also exhibited following documents :-
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and the conversion of the appellant's conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I of....
The court held that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of premeditation and presence of heat of passion.
The court altered the conviction from murder under Section 302 to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident as a sudden figh....
The court modified conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, establishing that the incident arose from sudden provocation and was not premeditated.
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
