The court ruled that lack of premeditation and motive in a mother-son homicide allows for conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC instead of Section 302, reflecting culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.09.2014 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Surguja (Ambikapur) in Sessions Case No.206/2013, whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2. The deceased Shivnath was the son of the appellant, who was aged about 5 years at the relevant time. Prosecution case is that on 28.03.2013 at about 4 pm the appellant has assaulted her son and caused his murder and also tried to commit suicide. Thereafter, Mahesh Ram (PW-1), who is grandfather of the deceased, has lodged an FIR (Ex.P-1) on 28.03.2013 to the effect that on the said date at about 4 pm his wife CB Bai (PW-2), grandmother of the deceased, came to home crying while carrying deceased Shivnath in her lap and told him that the appellant has killed Shivnath by using knife and also tried to commit suicide by assaulting herself with knife. Subsequently, Merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) was lodged by Mahesh Ram (PW-1).

3. By the Property Seizure memo vide Ex.P/4 one t-shirt was seized which was proved by Mahesh Ram (PW-1) and from the spot blood stained soil was seized vide Ex.P/5. Memorandum statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.P/9 and one blood stained knife was recovered from her possession. Inquest report was prepared vide Ex.-P/12. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Josef Lakara (PW-6) who gave his report vide Ex.-P/16 opining that cause of death was shock due to excessive hemorrhage rupture of upper part of left lung fracture of left clavicle and first rib and nature of death is homicidal in nature. The same doctor (PW-6) has also examined the deceased and gave MLC report (Ex.P-17) in which injury was found in the abdomen of the appellant.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents.

5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

6. Shri Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court has committed grave error in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 and 309 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that at best offence under Section 304 (Part-II) would be made out against the appellant herein because the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased all of a sudden and she has no intention or premeditation to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellants is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC. Since the appellant remained in jail for about 3 years 8 months, she may be sentenced to the period already undergone by her. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chunni Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , 2025 SCC OnLine 955.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and would submit that in the present case the appellant has killedher own son and als