Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 5553
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ
Mahendra Verma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1909 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R. K. Pali
For the Respondents: Mr. Afroz Khan
Court affirmed no premeditation in the fatal act, modifying the conviction to culpable homicide after considering eyewitness and forensic evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 447 and 302 read with Section 34 - Criminal appeal against conviction under Sections 302 and 447 IPC - Conviction of the main appellant altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC based on circumstances of lack of premeditation and heat of passion - Acquittal of other appellants on benefit of doubt due to insufficient evidence supporting their involvement - Conviction based on eye witness statements and forensic evidence (Para 20).
(B) Penal Law - Guidelines for determining culpability under Section 304 - Considerations regarding intention, premeditation, and nature of the act emphasized through judicial precedents (Paras 12-18).
Facts of the case:
The incidents occurred on 08.02.2017 when the appellants confronted the deceased leading to fatal injuries inflicted by appellant no.1.
Findings of Court:
The court affirms that the death of Hemdas was homicide and the actions of appellant no.1 conformed to the criteria of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Issues: Determination of culpability of the accused regarding the fatal incident and whether the act fell under homicide or culpable homicide without intention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that lack of premeditation and presence of provocation justified modifying the conviction of appellant no.1 from murder to culpable homicide.
Result: Conviction of appellant no.1 modified; acquittal of appellants no.2 to 4.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction details and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellants' defense arguments and the prosecution's response. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's assessment of homicide nature and evidence basis. (Para 9 , 10 , 18) |
| 4. details of legal standards for culpable homicide. (Para 12 , 20) |
| 5. final rulings and conclusions drawn by the court. (Para 21) |
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2017, passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, in Special Case No. 04/2017, by which, the appellants herein have been convicted for offence punishable under Section s 447 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:
- Conviction Sentence u/s 447 of the IPC R.I. for 3 months u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months additional imprisonment.
2. The case of prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 08.02.2017, in between 9:00 to 11:50 a.m., in village Neour, Police Station Nandghat, District Bemetara, the appellants herein trespassed the house of Dukhit Ram 3 Satnami (PW-1) and Appellant No.1 assaulted Hemdas (now deceased) by axe, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries on his head and left hand, for which, he was admitted to Govt. Hospital, Nawagarh, where during the course of treatment he succumbed to the injuries on the same day i.e. 08.02.2017 at about 11.50 a.m., thereby committed the aforesaid offence. The matter being reported to the Police by Dukhit Ram Satnami (PW-1) who is the father of deceased Hemdas, ASI Prabhakar Singh Rajput (PW-13) reached Govt. Hospital, Nawagarh and recorded Dehati Merg Intimation vide Ex.P-1 and registered Dehati FIR vide Ex. P-2. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex. P-5 and the dead body of deceased was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. T. N. Mahingleshwar (PW-10), who has proved the post-mortem report (Ex. P-21), in which, cause of death has been opined to be coma and hemorrhagic shock due to injury in brain and death was homicidal in nature. On report being made by Dukhit Ram Satnami (PW-1), firstly FIR (Ex. P-24) was registered on ‘0’ number, based on which, FIR (Ex.P-29) was registered vide Crime No.36/17. Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant No.1 (Ex.P/13), weapon of offence i.e. axe was recovered vide Ex.P-/15 and 4 on memorandum statement of appellant No.2 (Ex.P/14), an axe was recovered vide Ex.P-/16 which were sent for chemical examination to FSL along with other seized articles. As per FSL report (Ex. P/31) human blood was found on “D” i.e. the axe seized from appellant no.1 but no blood was found on “F” i.e. the axe seized from appellant no.2.
3. After completion of investigation, appellants herein were charge - sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in crime in question.
4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. The statement of appellants / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, the appellants in support of their 5 defence have neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.
5. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the
