Back
2020 Supreme(Tri) 67
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S. Talapatra, Arindam Lodh, JJ.
Ram Kumar Sukladas - Appellants
Vs.
State of Tripura - Respondent
Cri. A. (J) No. 6 of 2017
Decided On : 16-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Bhattacharjee
For the Respondent: Ratan Datta, PP
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the fourth exception of Section 300 of the IPC, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the sudden fight in the heat of passion in determining the nature of the offence.
Headnote:
MURDER - Criminal Law - IPC Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302, IPC Section 304 Part II - The court discussed the legal provisions of IPC Section 300 and its exceptions, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the sudden fight in the heat of passion. The court also referred to the doctrine of sudden and grave provocation and the nature of the weapon used in determining whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for causing the death of the deceased by assaulting him with a trishul. The appellant claimed absence of motive and argued that the offence fell under the fourth exception of Section 300 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence reflected a sudden squabble and a free fight, leading to the appellant giving a fatal blow causing a single injury resulting in the victim's death. The court concluded that the offence fell within the fourth exception of Section 300 of the IPC, and the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II of the IPC for committing homicide not amounting to murder.
Issues: The main issue was whether the offence constituted murder under Section 302 of the IPC or fell under the fourth exception of Section 300, leading to conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles of absence of premeditation, sudden fight in the heat of passion, and the nature of the weapon used to determine the nature of the offence and the appropriate conviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs. 5000.
JUDGMENT :
S. Talapatra, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Ratan Datta, learned PP appearing for the state.
2. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 02.07.2016 delivered in S.T.(T-1) 14 of 2015 the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai, as he then was. By the said judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation. The genesis of the case is rooted in the complaint filed by one Parimal Chandra Das (PW-7) to the Officer-in-charge, Khowai PS (Exbt-2) revealing that on 30.07.2016 at about 6 o' clock in the morning one Ramkumar Shukla Das alias Haridas alias Sanyashi of their locality had entered in the house of his elder brother, namely Gouranga Chandra Das (the deceased) and assaulted him causing him several injuries. In a critical condition, he was taken to Khowai Hospital. The doctors there declared him dead.
3. Based on the said complaint filed by Parimal Chandra Das (PW-7), the Khowai PS case No. 50 of 2010 under Section 449/302 of the IPC was registered and taken up for investigation. On completion of the investigation, the final police report was filed sending up the appellant to face the trial. On commitment, the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai framed the charge under Section 302 of the IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To substantiate the charge as many as 16 witnesses were examined including the informant, Chandan Deb (PW-5), Kalpana Sukla Das (PW-8) and the Post-mortem doctor. The prosecution has adduced nine documentary evidence including the inquest report (Exbt-4) and the post-mortem examination report (Exbt-9). Having recorded the evidence, led by the prosecution; the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on appreciation of the evidence, the said judgment of conviction has been returned by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai as he then was.
5. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence of previous enmity or there is no motive to murder the deceased. But, there is evidence that the deceased and the appellant engaged themselves in a squabble followed by the assault with a trishul (trident) which caused death of the deceased. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel even though in the complaint it has been alleged that there were several injuries on the person of the deceased, but from the post-mortem examination report, no such injuries can be located. Therefore, the death was caused by the single blow given by the trishul causing perforation in the lungs. The death was caused by incessant hemorrhage.
6. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that three circumstances are paramount in the present appeal:
(1) Absence of motive to kill.
(2) engagement in a free fight before the fatal blow was given and
(3) the unbridled anger of the appellant as apparent in the face of the record.
7. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has thus submitted that the offence cannot be brought within the parameters of murder but it would come under the fourth exception of Section 300 which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
8. It is immaterial on such cases which party offered the provocation or gave the first blow. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Vithalrao Thakre and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1995 SCC 1453: (1995 Cri.L.J. 2907 (SC)) where the Apex Court has observed that when there is absence of the other injury, but a single injury caused
