Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Arvind Singh Chandel, JJ.
Bhedkamal Khande, S/o Sukalu Das Khande - Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh, through : Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1970 Of 2017
Decided On : 23-04-2024
Section 302 - Indian Penal Code - 302 - 304 - The court affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the appellant was the author of the crime. The court also considered the appellant's contention that the case would fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, and after analyzing the law relating to provocation, particularly sustained provocation, the court concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, converting his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC to that of Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of his son. The prosecution's case was based on witness statements and evidence of the deceased suffering grievous injuries at the hands of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the finding of the Trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the appellant was the author of the crime. The court also considered the appellant's contention that the case would fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, and after analyzing the law relating to provocation, particularly sustained provocation, the court concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, converting his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC to that of Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the death, the author of the crime, and whether the case fell under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, particularly the concept of sustained provocation, and its application to the appellant's circumstances.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and instead convicted the appellant under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC, sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years.
JUDGMENT :
Arvind Singh Chandel, 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 31.08.2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.30/2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court are that on 19.03.2017, the appellant was sleeping in his room along with his son Nikhil Kumar Khande (deceased) who was aged about seven years. The daughter of the appellant was sleeping with her grandmother Sunabai (PW-2) in the another room. The wife of the appellant had already left the house of the appellant and was residing separately in her parental home. On the said night about 4:00 AM, upon hearing the cry of Nikhil, Sunabai, mother of the appellant informed Neelkamal Khande (PW-1) that the appellant is beating his son Nikhil (deceased) inside the room which was closed from inside. After some time, son of the appellant stopped crying, then the appellant opened the door. At that time the appellant had lathi in his hand which was stained with blood and the deceased was lying inside the room, blood was oozing out from his head and the same was witnessed by his brother Neelkamal (PW-1). Deceased Nikhil had suffered grievous injuries on his head due to which he died on the spot.
3. Merg intimation (Ex.P/5) regarding death of Nikhil Khande (deceased) was recorded by Neelkamal Khande (PW-1), brother of the appellant. He also lodged the FIR (Ex.P-6) before the Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex. P/2 and the dead body of Nikhil was subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. G.B. Singh (PW-6) and his report is Ex.P/13 in which the cause of death was opined as severe head (brain) injuries and its complication and the nature of death was homicidal. Nazri Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Thereafter, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. During course of investigation, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded and vide Ex.P/15 i.e. property seizure memo, one lathi which was stained with blood was recovered from the appellant and the same was sent for chemical examination. However, no FSL report is produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.
4. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence before the concerned jurisdictional Criminal Court from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after committal, the matter was received by the Court of Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli for trial and its disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial.
5. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. In defence, no witness has been examined. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication.
6. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment dated 31.08.2017, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, has reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to duly establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him in the manner as mentioned in p
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 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 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 clarified that for Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC to apply, provocation must be both grave and sudden, leading to a temporary loss of self-control.
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
