Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Joseph Soy, son of late Nathaniel Soy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 346 of 2016
Decided On : 05-03-2024
[MURDER] - [Homicide] - [Section 302, Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code] - [The court discussed the applicability of Section 302 IPC concerning murder and Section 304 IPC regarding culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It emphasized the necessity of proving intention and premeditation for a murder charge under Section 302. The court interpreted Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if committed in a sudden fight without premeditation and without taking undue advantage. The court concluded that the appellant's actions fell under this exception, leading to a modification of the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Joseph Soy, was accused of murdering Pasna Bhengra with an axe during a quarrel after both had been drinking. The incident occurred on December 16, 2011, and the informant, Sukru Bhengra, reported the murder after discovering her husband's body. The prosecution presented nine witnesses, including eyewitnesses who testified to the altercation and the fatal assault.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC, concluding that the prosecution had proven the charge beyond reasonable doubt. However, upon appeal, the higher court analyzed the evidence and determined that the act was committed in a sudden fight without premeditation, thus falling under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under Section 302 IPC? 2. Whether the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, thus constituting culpable homicide not amounting to murder? 3. Whether the trial court erred in its judgment and sentencing?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must prove intention and premeditation. The court found that the appellant acted in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, satisfying the criteria for Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which led to the conclusion that the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Final Decision: The court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, sentencing the appellant to the period already served and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 23.01.2016 and order of sentence dated 29.01.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, in Sessions Trial Case No. 398 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced to undergo R.I for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in the event of default of payment of fine convict was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Prosecution Case:
2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case:
The First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of fardbayan of Sukru Bhengra, which was recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police, Mehra Police Station, Officer-in- charge of Akri P.S. alleging therein that deceased Pasna Bhengra, the husband of informant Sukru Bhengra, stepped out from his house at around 8:00 AM on 16.12.2011 with Joseph Soy, S/o Late Nathaniel Soy, Village-Soyko, P.S.-Murhu, District-Khunti who at present lives at the house of his maternal uncle Junad Oreya in Japut. He did not return till 4:00 PM then the informant began to wait for the return of her husband deceased Pasna Bhengra. In meanwhile, the informant came out from her house on hearing alarm of shepherd and co-villagers. She came to know that Joseph Soy killed Pasna Bhengra, the husband of informant, with an axe and fled away in forest. The informant went on road near graveyard at west of village and saw the dead body of her husband Pasna Bhengra in a pool of blood. Thereafter, the informant went and narrated this fact to other villagers. The villagers tried to search Joseph Soy here and there but he could not be traced out. At around 11:30 PM, Joseph Soy came at house of his maternal uncle Junad Oreya where he was caught with the cooperation of villagers and inquired then Joseph Soy said that we both (deceased Pasna Bhengra and Joseph Soy) were coming from Soradih to our house at Japut and further stated that in the meanwhile, we have exchange of hot discussion and abusive language, and I (Joseph Soy) killed deceased Pasna Bhengra with an axe on this issue and fled into forest after throwing the axe into the bush. After being caught by villagers and as disclosed by Joseph Soy, the axe used for murder was recovered from nearby bush and seized by the police.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Akri P.S. Case No. 44 of 2011 was registered for the offence under Section 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and after completion of investigation the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused. Accordingly, the cognizance for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against accused and the case stands committed to the Court of Sessions wherefrom it has been transferred to the file of learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Khunti.
4. The charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against named accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether nine [09] witnesses, they are PW 1 Ramaya Konda, PW 2 Nathaniel Topno, PW 3 Soleman Tuti, PW 4-Samuel Oriya, PW 5-Dr. Sunil Khalko, PW 6-Parmeshwar Dayal Mehara, PW 7 Boas Guria, PW 8 Daniel Mundu and PW 9 Sukru Bhengra, (Informant).
6. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused and found the charges levelled against the appellant proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accor
The court established that a homicide committed in a sudden fight without premeditation and without taking undue advantage can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Excepti....
The court established that the presence of intention to kill, the nature of the weapon used, and the circumstances of the quarrel are critical in determining whether an act constitutes murder or a le....
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the nature of the altercation as a sudden fight.
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
