Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ.
Shailendra Lakda S/o Saidas Lakda - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Reserve Police Tapkara, Police Station Tapkara, - Respondent
CRA No. 123 of 2023
Decided on : 04-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304 Part-II - Appeal against conviction and sentence - The appellant was convicted for causing death due to dangerous injury inflicted during a quarrel, sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment, later reduced to 5 years - The court found the conviction justified based on evidence of injuries and witness testimonies - The appellant's actions were impulsive and without premeditation, justifying a lesser sentence. (Paras 3, 21, 22)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - The burden lies on the accused to explain circumstances of the crime, which was not satisfactorily addressed - The court maintained the conviction based on the evidence presented. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, after a quarrel with his father-in-law, assaulted him with a bamboo stick, leading to his death three days later. The incident stemmed from ongoing domestic issues and was characterized as impulsive. (Paras 5, 15, 21)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II, affirming the trial court's findings based on medical evidence and witness accounts. The sentence was reduced to 5 years considering the appellant's age and circumstances. (Paras 21, 22)
Issues: The main issues involved the adequacy of evidence for conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence given the nature of the incident. (Paras 4, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the nature of injuries and the circumstances leading to the death were sufficiently established, affirming the conviction while recognizing the need for a more lenient sentence due to lack of premeditation. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: Criminal appeal partly allowed; conviction maintained, sentence reduced to 5 years.
Order :
(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)
1. Though, today the present appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.1 of 2022, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and considering the period of detention of the appellant, the appeal is heard finally.
2. Accordingly, I.A. No.01 of 2022 stands disposed of.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.09.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, Jashpur, District – Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.07/2021 (Crime No.114/2020, P./S. Tapkara, District- Jashpur) whereby the trial Court after holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 01 year.
4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the charge against the appellant and has failed to prove the fact that the accused has assaulted the deceased and caused dangerous injury resulting into death of the deceased.
5. Brief facts of the case are that on November 8, 2020, informant Mrs. Sangeeta Lakra lodged an oral report at Tapkara Police Station, stating that she married the accused, Shailendra Lakra, approximately 15 years ago according to social customs. Her parental home is in Ranchi, Modma. For about ten years, her husband, Shailendra Lakra, had been telling her to leave the house and, upon her refusal, would quarrel and physically assault her. This led her to take her children and go to her parental home. After staying there for some time, hoping her husband would reform, she would return to her marital home. Approximately 15- 16 days prior, her husband quarreled with her again, prompting her to take her children and go to her parental home. On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, around 7:00 PM, she returned to her marital home with her children and found her husband, Shailendra Lakra, and father-in-law, Saidas, arguing about her departure to her parental home. Her husband was saying that if she returned this time, he would beat her. Her father-in-law was trying to reason with him, stating that whenever she returns from her parental home, he starts quarreling. Her husband then started abusing her father-in-law, using offensive language, and threatened to beat him. When her father-in-law challenged him to do so, her husband grabbed a nearby bamboo stick and started beating him. When she and her mother-in-law, Serofina Lakra, tried to intervene, her husband threatened to beat them as well, causing them to back off. He continued to beat her father-in-law with the bamboo stick, causing head injuries and leading him to collapse. Her husband threatened to harm anyone who reported the incident to the police, which deterred her from reporting out of fear. The next day, her husband took her father-in-law to Tapkara Hospital, falsely claiming that the injuries were due to a fall, but the treatment provided no relief. Her father-in-law remained bedridden and had difficulty speaking. Consequently, she brought her father-in-law to Tapkara Hospital for treatment and reported the incident against her husband, Shailendra Lakra, at the police station.
6. Based on her report, Tapkara Police Station registered First Information Report (Ex.P-01) against the accused, Shailendra Lakra, under Crime No. 114/2020 for offences under Sections 294, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and initiated an investigation. A site map of the incident location was prepared (Ex.P-02). On November 9, 2020, based on information provided by complainant Vinay Tigga, a Dehati Marg Intimation No. 0/2020 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was registered at the incident location in Bamhanmara, and Dehati Marg Intimation (
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304 Part-II of IPC while reducing the sentence from 7 years to 5 years due to the impulsive nature of the act and the appellant's prior detention.
The court established that the conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is justified when intent to kill is not proven, relying on witness credibility and evidential discrepancies.
Conviction modified to Section 304 A IPC as prosecution failed to prove that the accused acted with intent or knowledge to cause death; incident deemed accidental.
Conviction requires reliable evidence and knowledge of victim's medical condition; lacking such knowledge limits liability to lesser offenses.
The judgment established that culpable homicide can be classified as not amounting to murder when committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation, as outlined in Excep....
Suspension of sentence is only granted in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the conviction may not be sustainable, which was not established in this case.
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
