Sadaramj Taram S/o Mangiya Ram Taram, aged about 46 years, R/o Bich Para v. State of Chhattisgarh through thana Kadgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.03.07 17:54:02 +0530 2025:CGHC:11103-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1347 of 2019 [Ari sing out of judgment dated 12.06.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.33/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.] Sadaramj Taram S/o Mangiya Ram Taram, aged about 46 years, R/o Bich Para Chapatola Thana Kadgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through thana Kadgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant of
Legal Reasoning
“20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348], it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 220, para 7) “7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (I) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the 1 (2017) 3 SCC 247 8 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor its I relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.” 21. Further in Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130], in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 596, para 9) “9. …. '18. The help of exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the “fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It 9 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provisions means “unfair advantage”.” 14. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 Part-I of IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II IPC. 15. Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-stated judgment, it is quite vivid from the statements of Murari Ram (PW-3) and Brijlal Sahu (PW-4) that there was a personal dispute between the appellant and the deceased with regard to cleaning of toilet, which the deceased had taken in public/panchayat meeting, therefore, the appellant became angry and since the matter could not be settled in the panchayat meeting, the appellant and the deceased came back to the house and out of 10 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 anger, the appellant is said to have assaulted his wife by axe by which she suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of his wife Chamrin Bai (deceased). However, considering the nature of injuries which have occurred on the body of the deceased and further considering the medical evidence available on the record, it is quite vivid that appellant must have had knowledge that such injury inflicted by him on the body of the deceased would likely to cause her death, as such, this is a case which would fall within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein completely satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv) the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as 11 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Considering that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of his wife Chamrin Bai (deceased) and the injuries caused by him were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. 17. This criminal appeal is partly allowed. 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and the copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Ankit
Arguments
Mr. :- Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate,on Bhatia, behalf Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee. M.P.S. For State-Respondent :- Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Judgment Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal On Board (06.03.2025) 2 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant-accused is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 33/2017 by which appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. Case of the prosecution in, nutshell, is that on 11.01.2017 at about 10:00 am at village Bich Para Chapatola Thana Kadgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, the appellant assaulted his wife Chamrin Bai by axe by which she suffered grievous injuries and died. The said incident was reported by village Kotwar Dheludas Manikpuri (PW-1) pursuant to which unnumbered dehati nalsi and unnumbered dehati merg intimation were registered vide Exs.P/2 and P/1, respectively. Numbered merg intimation and FIR were registered vide Exs.P/23 & P/24, respectively. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/6. Inquest proceedings were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per 3 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 postmortem report (Ex.P/15) proved by Dr. S.R. Kowachi (PW- 6) cause of death was shock due to excessive bleeding due to rupture on right external jugular vein and rupture of trachea and nature was homicidal. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/10) weapon of offence i.e. axe and his clothes were seized vide Exs.P/11 & P/12, respectively. Other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P/29) on the full-shirt of the appellant (article B) blood was found; on the weapon of offence i.e. axe (article A) & soil (articles D & E) human blood was found and on the clothes of the deceased (C1 to C3) human blood of “O” group was found. 3. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses; exhibited 29 documents and articles A-1 to A-4 and defence in support of its case has not examined any witness, but exhibited 4 documents. 4 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in covicting the appellant for the offence in question. He would also submit that considering the manner in which the offence is said to have been committed, the appellant may not be convicted for offence in question as the deceased had taken the personal dispute in the public, therefore, the appellant became angry, and after the public/panchayat meeting, the appellant is said to have assaulted his wife (deceased). As such, though the appellant must have knowledge, but had no intention and, therefore, at the best, the conviction for offence under Section 304 Part II would be made out and the appellant is in jail since 11.01.2017 more than 8 years. Therefore, it is a fit case where conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted / 5 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla and Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and it is not the case of alteration of offence from under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC where the conviction of the appellant can be modified for lesser offence, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question, as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P/15) 6 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 proved by Dr. S.R. Kowachi (PW-6), which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding of the trial Court holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 10. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant has assaulted the deceased? 11. The trial Court has convicted the appellant by invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the “IEA”) as the incident had taken place in the house of the appellant in which only these two inmates (appellant and deceased) were in the house in question and no one was present on the date and time of offence and also the said incident was taken place in the house in question immediately after the panchayat meeting which was noticed by Murari Ram (PW-3) and Brijlal Sahu (PW- 4). Therefore, the appellant is required to explain as to how and under what circumstances his wife died which he failed to explain, as such, the trial Court has rightly invoked Section 106 of the IEA to base the convcition. Further, 7 CRA No. 1347 of 2019 pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/10) weapon of offence i.e. axe as well as his clothes were seized vide Exs.P/11 & P/12, respectively on which in FSL report (Ex.P/29) human blood and blood were found, respectively. As such, the trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant who assaulted his wife (deceased) by which she suffered grievous injuries and died, which is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record and, as such, we hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court. 12. Now, the question is, whether the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC? 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh1 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-