Back
1993 Supreme(Ori) 74
High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT, D. M. PATNAIK
MATHURA MURMU - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
J. CRI. A. 192 Of 1990
Decided On : 07/30/1993
Banabehari Ray, G.K.MOHANTY, S.B.Das
In a sudden fight, if there is insufficient time for passion to cool-off and the anger resulting from the quarrel to subside, the offense may amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - SECTION 304 PART I IPC - SUDDEN FIGHT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Mathura Murmu, was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for intentionally causing the death of Raghunath Reddy. The prosecution alleged that the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife during a quarrel, causing his death. The accused pleaded false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the eyewitnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 10, was credible and established that the accused had stabbed the deceased during a sudden quarrel. However, the court held that the offense amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, as the accused had not come back with the knife and given another attack for the second time, and there was insufficient time for passion to cool-off and the anger resulting from the quarrel to subside.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and established the guilt of the accused. 2. Whether the offense amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was credible and established the guilt of the accused, as they had elaborately stated how the occurrence took place and had seen the occurrence from a close distance. The court rejected the defense's argument that the eyewitnesses had not disclosed the occurrence to anyone in the village until the police arrived, as it was not unusual for witnesses not to inform villagers about the cause of death. 2. The court held that the offense amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, as the accused had not come back with the knife and given another attack for the second time, and there was insufficient time for passion to cool-off and the anger resulting from the quarrel to subside. The court considered the nature of the injury, the place where it was caused, and the size of the weapon in reaching this conclusion.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and convicting the accused under Section 304 Part I IPC, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) ON the accusation that Mathura Murmu, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') committed murder by intentionally causing the death of Raghunath Reddy (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') law was set into motion by P. Sanyasi Reddy (P. W. 1 ).
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that the deceased having migrated to Paradip from his native place Nandigaon of Ganjam district was working as a labourer at Paradip. The accused has also migrated to the same place from village Gadadoulia of Mayurbhanj district. He was also working as a labourer. The deceased, the accused, P. W. 1 and several others including Sahadeb Apta (P. W. 2) and Pushiram Pradhan (P. W. 10) were all residing at Adibazipada of Atharbaoki area of Paradip. In the morning of 28-9-l989 the accused had removed a bag of coal from the railway wagon for which the railway police caught him red handed. The accused ran away from the spot after quarrelling with the police. The deceased happened to be present there. At the request of railway police he helped them to place the bag of coal in the police office. The accused took exception to this act of the deceased and bore grudge. At about 3. 30 p. m. in the afternoon while the deceased was standing near the shop of Ghanashyam Mohapatra (P. W. 6) the accused came and quarrelled with him. In the course of quarrel there was exchange of abusive words. P. W. 2 Sahadeb had come to the shop of P. W. 6 to make some purchases at that time. His shop was closed. He saw the accused and deceased quarrelling. On seeing him the accused went away. While Sahadeb was enquiring from the deceased, the accused went inside the pusti and suddenly came armed with a knife and stabbed on deceased's chest little above the abdomen by means of the knife and started running from the place. Dukhiram Pradhan (P. W. 10) had also seen the stabbing while standing at a short distance from the place of occurrence. A hue and cry was raised by the deceased and P. Ws. 2 and 10. The deceased tried to go to his house with that injury but he could not proceed beyond the house of Puni Reddy (P. W. 7) and fell down in front of her house. In the meantime other witnesses also arrived at the spot. P. W. 4 chased the accused. At a place known as Sukhuakhala he was caught by the villagers and was detained with the bloodstained knife. Many others had also seen him running away. P. W. 6 came to the house of P. W. 1 and informed him about the occurrence. Attempts were made to remove the deceased to the hospital by a trolley rickshaw. P. W. 1 proceeded to the hospital where he found the deceased lying with an injury on his abdomen. An oral report was lodged at Paradip police station upon which investigation was undertaken taken and on completion thereof charge sheet was submitted against the accused.
( 3 ) PLEA of false implication was taken by the accused.
( 4 ) IN order to bring home the charge against the accused eleven witnesses were examined. P. Ws. 2 and 10 claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. On elaborate analysis of the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 10, the learned trial Judge came to hold, that the accused was guilty of an offence under S. 302, IPC and accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
( 5 ) IN support of the appeal it is urged that the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 10 lacks credibility and, therefore, the learned trial Judge should not have convicted the accused. Alternatively it is submitted that a case under S. 302, IPC is not made out against the accused since the occurrence took place in course of a quarrel and only one stab blow was given. The learned counsel for State on the other hand supported the, judgment of conviction and sentence.
( 6 ) P. WS. 2 and 10 have elaborately, stated as to how the occurrence took place. They claimed to have seen the occurrence from a close distance. The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 10 has been attacked on the ground that
