Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.
Karzi Soy – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRLA No. 574 of 2018
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Provocation - Criminal Law - IPC Section 302, IPC Section 304 Part II - [IPC Section 302, IPC Section 304 Part II] - The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the offence could be properly categorized as one punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and not Section 302 IPC due to sudden provocation, leading to the modification of the impugned judgment and conviction of the Appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC. The key legal provisions discussed were IPC Section 302 and IPC Section 304 Part II, and the interpretation of sudden provocation as a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate offence.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant assaulted his elder sister-in-law, resulting in her death. The trial Court convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, but the High Court modified the judgment based on the evidence of sudden provocation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the offence could be properly categorized as one punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC due to sudden provocation, leading to the modification of the impugned judgment and conviction of the Appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Appellant's actions constituted an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 Part II IPC, considering the presence of sudden provocation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the evidence of sudden provocation and its impact on categorizing the offence under the appropriate section of the IPC.
Final Decision: The Court modified the impugned judgment of the trial Court and convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC, sentencing the Appellant to eight years' RI while maintaining the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- as well as the default sentence of three months' RI.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - The present appeal is directed against a judgment dated 31st March, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj in ST Case No.12 of 2017 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant assaulted his elder sister-in-law Tui Soy by means of a 'Thenga' on her head at around 1.30 pm on 10th December, 2016 as a result of which she fell unconscious. The Informant Nauru Kalah (PW 1) and certain other villagers sent the injured to C.H.C., Jamda in an unconscious state. She was admitted in S.D.H., Rairangpur and again referred to D.H.H. Baripada where she struggled for her life.
3. PW 1 got an FIR scribed at around 5.30 pm at Jamda PS on 11th December, 2016. The FIR was first registered under Section 307 IPC. Nearly four days after the assault, Tui Soy died on 14th December, 2016 at D.H.H. Baripada and the case was converted to one under Section 302 IPC against the Appellant.
4. Padmalochan Panigrahi (PW 19) was the Officer-in-Charge at Jamda PS and therefore, the Investigating Officer of the case (IO). He arrived at the spot on 11th December, 2016 at around 6.30 pm and seized the sample earth, blood stained earth and examined the witnesses. On 13th December, 2016 the Appellant was apprehended from his house. Pursuant to the statement made by him, the wooden badi kept concealed by the side of his cultivable land near his house was recovered. The IO also seized the wearing apparels of the Appellant including the sample blood and blood stained earth. After the death of the injured, conducted inquest over the dead body and then sent her body for post-mortem examination. On 21st December, 2016 he handed over the investigation to Sri M.K. Das upon his transfer from Jamda PS to Tiring PS.
5. On filing of a charge sheet, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On behalf of the prosecution twenty-two witnesses were examined. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution under which case the Appellant has committed offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court negatived the alternative plea of the accused that this could be an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
6. This Court has heard the submissions of Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mrs. Saswata Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondent- State.
7. One of the key witnesses to the occurrence was an eyewitness, Kundi Barda (PW 6). Her deposition reveals that she is the sister- in-law of the deceased. She was very much present in the courtyard of the house where the deceased was cleaning the utensils at around 12 noon on 10th December, 2016. She spoke about witnessing the Appellant assault the deceased by means of a Tengha on her head causing bleeding injury as a result of which, the deceased fell down unconscious. PW 6 then went to the Khala (threshing floor) and called Ashok (PW 7), the son of the deceased. Thereafter, they sprinkled water on Tui's face and caused her to sleep on a cot. Since the deceased did not regain her senses, she was taken to Jamda medical for treatment and then she was shifted to D.H.H., Baripada.
8. PW-6 was subjected to detailed cross-examination. However, there was nothing elicited that could even remotely throw a doubt on the credibility of her deposition. Her answer in para 4 of the cross-examination is significant as she denied the following suggestion:
'4. It is not a fact that I have stated to the police that the deceased Tui Soy argued with the accused Karzi after cleaning her utensils and that the accused asked Tui Soy to keep silent but Tui did not listen to him and rather shouted at Karzi and at that time the accused got angry and assaulted Tui Soy
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of sudden provocation as a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate offence under the Indian Penal Code.
Court altered conviction from murder to manslaughter under Section 304-I, emphasizing spontaneity and lack of premeditation in rural contexts.
A conviction for murder is upheld when the prosecution establishes intentional lethal force and the defense fails to demonstrate any mitigating statutory exceptions, such as grave and sudden provocat....
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II due to lack of intent and the nature of the altercation.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intent to kill can lead to a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC in cases of sudden provocation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of exception 4 to section 300 of the IPC to determine the nature of the accused's act and the appropriate charge under the IPC.
The court established that a lack of premeditation and intention to kill in a sudden quarrel can lead to a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
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
