Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Satya Narayan Singh, S/o. Late Munshi Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1029 of 2017
Decided On : 14-03-2024
MURDER - Culpable Homicide - Sections 299, 300, 302, 304 of IPC - The court discussed the definitions and distinctions between culpable homicide and murder under Sections 299 and 300 of the IPC, emphasizing the necessity of intention and premeditation in determining the nature of the crime. It highlighted that Section 304 provides for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, particularly under circumstances lacking premeditation, which influenced the court's decision to modify the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Satya Narayan Singh, was convicted for the murder of Dinanath Singh after an altercation over scolding Dinanath's child. Following a heated argument, Satya Narayan assaulted Dinanath with a tangi, resulting in Dinanath's death en route to the hospital. The trial court sentenced Satya Narayan to life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court failed to consider the lack of premeditation and the nature of the altercation, which indicated that the act was committed in the heat of passion rather than with intent to kill. The evidence suggested that the assault was not premeditated, leading to the conclusion that the case fell under Section 304 Part (II) of IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction under Section 302 of IPC? 2. Whether the case fell under the exceptions to Section 300 of IPC? 3. Whether the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304?
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for a conviction under Section 302, there must be clear evidence of intention and premeditation. The absence of these elements, coupled with the nature of the altercation, warranted a conviction under Section 304 Part (II), which applies when the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without intent to kill.
Final Decision: The court modified the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part (II) of IPC, sentencing the appellant to the period already undergone and ordering his release if not wanted in any other case.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been preferred against the Judgment of conviction dated 16.02.2017 and order of sentence dated 21.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 2016, arising out of Kharaundhi P.S. Case No.04 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.80 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence committed under Section 302 of IPC and compensation of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the same has been directed to be recovered from the movable and immovable property of the convict.
Facts:
2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made by the informant, read as under:
On 07.01.2016 at about 9:00 pm, the accused Satya Narayan Singh and deceased Dinanath Singh has altercation after they have taken liquor. Dinanath Singh was scolding his child for not studying and on this Satya Narayan Singh did not feel happy / comfortable / amused. He got angry and brought a tangi (axe) from his house and assaulted Dinanath Singh with Tangi incessantly. He was seriously injured, fell down and became unconscious. His wife Lila Devi started raising alarm. The neighbours assembled there and a tempo was arranged and Dinanath Singh was taken to Bhawanathpur Hospital from where he was referred to Garhwa Hospital. While on the way to the Hospital, he died near Meral. Thereafter, they returned to the village.
On the basis of this written report, an FIR was registered as Kharaundhi P.S. Case No.04 of 2016 dated 08.01.2016 u/s 302 of IPC.
Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and in view thereof, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.20,000/-.
Grounds taken on behalf of the Appellant:
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the following grounds for interfering with the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment :
(ii) It would be evident from the testimony of P.W.-8, the investigation officer and the P.W.-6 that the appellant has assaulted deceased Dinanath Singh with tangi at the time when he was scolding his child for not studying and on this, the appellant got angry and assaulted him. This fact itself clarifies that there was no pre-meditation of mind in committing murder of the deceased;
Therefore, at best, it can be said to be a case of exception to Section 300 of IPC and hence, the appellant can be convicted under Section 304 Part (II) of IPC.
(iii) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant since has already remained in custody for almost eight years, as such, the judgment of conviction may be modified by modifying it to that of Section 304 Part (I) or 304 Part (II) of IPC.
Grounds taken on behalf of the Respondent:
4. While, on the other hand, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken the following grounds :
(ii) The informant as also the investigating officer have supported the prosecution version;
(iii) The appellant has killed with intention to commit murder of the deceased, otherwise there was no occasion for the appellant to come with tangi and give tangi blow;
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecution, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment of conviction therefore is based upon the testimony of the witnesses and if on that consideration, the learned trial court has come to the conclusion that the present case is of commission of murde
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
