Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 165
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Goutam Bhaduri, J
Panchram Seetaram Rathiya v. State of Chhattisgarh Through PS Kartala Distt.- Korba C. G.
Criminal Appeal No. 1634 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MANISH K. TAWAR, PRAMOD K. SHARMA
For the Respondents: V.K. SHARMA, A.G. PANDAY
The court redefined culpable homicide, reducing conviction from murder to manslaughter based on evidence evaluation.
Headnote:1. Statute Analysis: The appeal pertains to the interpretation of S.302 and S.304, IPC, as the appellant was initially convicted under S.302, IPC but the court considered the circumstances. Facts of the Case: The appellant was convicted for murdering his father, leading to an appeal after his conviction and sentencing to life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
The court found the prosecution failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances necessary for a S.302 conviction; thus altered conviction to S.304, Part I, IPC. 2.
Issues: The court framed the issue regarding the sufficiency of evidence for a murder conviction, emphasizing on the circumstantial nature of the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the injuries inflicted, while serious, did not meet the threshold for murder under S.302 as not all injuries were fatal, noting that culpable liability could fall under S.304. 3.
Result: In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of accused / appellant is altered from S.302, IPC to S.304, Part - I, IPC and he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under ipc with life sentence for parental murder. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal arguments on circumstantial evidence for conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's reasoning for altering conviction from murder to manslaughter. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 4. final decision on reduced sentence for altered conviction. (Para 22) |
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1-9-2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korba in S.T. No. 30/2011 convicting the accused / appellant under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for Life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo additional R. I. for 1 year.
2. Accused / appellant is the son of deceased Seetaram. As per case of the prosecution, there was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased over the construction of house and on the fateful day i.e. 20-2-2011, when the deceased was resting on the cot, the accused / appellant caused six axe injuries on various parts of the body of deceased. The deceased was immediately taken to the hospital where his MLC was done vide Ex. P - 18. FIR (Ex. P - 6) was registered against the accused / appellant under S.326, IPC. During the course of treatment the deceased succumbed to the injuries and therefore the offence under S.302, IPC was registered against the accused / appellant. Inquest over the body of deceased was prepared on 22-2-2011 vide Ex. P - 13. Dead body was sent for post - mortem examination to the District Hospital, Korba where Dr. R. K. Divya (PW - 12) conducted autopsy and noticed following injuries.
* Compound fracture in the middle part of humerus bone with stitched wound of 7 cm size in length.
* Stitched wound over left forearm of 7cm size in length.
* Stitched wound over left palm dorsum of 6 cm in length.
* Stitched wound over left forearm at posterior aspect side having length of 6 cm.
* Stitched wound over left forearm of 2 ½ cm size in length.
* Stitched wound over urinal bladder of 2 ½ cm size in length.
* Fracture in the middle of right radio - ulna bone.
The autopsy surgeon has opined the cause of death to be shock due to injury on vital organs i.e. perforation of stomach, small intestine with haemorrhage and multiple fracture of bones, and the death was homicidal in nature. Accused / appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded on 21-2-2011 based on which axe used for committing the offence was seized vide Ex. P - 10. The axe seized at the instance of accused / appellant was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory from where report of Ex. P - 29 was received in which presence of blood on the axe has been affirmed. Statements of witnesses were recorded under S.313 of Cr. P.C.
3. On completion of investigation, charge - sheet for the offence punishable under S.302, IPC was filed against accused / appellant and accordingly the charge was framed by the trial Court against him. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge levelled against accused / appellant examined 18 witnesses in all. Statement of the accused / appellant was recorded under S.313 of Cr. P.C. in which he abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication.
4. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, the trial Court by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant in the manner as described above.
5. Learned counsel for accused / appellants submits that;
* Conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the circumstantial evidence i.e. last seen, and in the cases of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to prove that the entire chain of circumstances is complete but in the present case the quality of evidence is not as such on which basis it can be said that chain of circumstances is complete.
* Evidence of Nehar (PW - 5) and Dr. K. S. Porte (PW - 9), alleged witnesses of oral dying declaration made by t
