Jashpur Chhattisgarh v. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station
Case Details
SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.04.08 14:28:45 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:15930-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 655 of 2016 Ramchander Ram Yadav @ Kola S/o Late Khori Ram Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Dhandamba, P.S. - Duldula, District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh, Civil And Revenue District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant. Versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station - Duldula District - Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent. For Appellant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ Judgment on Board (04/04/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. This Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.5.2016 passed by the Special Judge, {Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act}, Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) in Special Case No.42/2014, by which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months Under Section 323 of the IPC RI for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 15 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 27.7.2014 at about 8:00 p.m., at Village Dhadhamba, Police Station Duldula, District Jashpur, the appellant assaulted one Ramcharan (now deceased) with a wooden plank on his head, as a result of which, he fell unconscious and, thereafter, died during the course of treatment in the hospital on 04.08.2014 and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offences. 3. It is further case of the prosecution that immediately after the incident, the deceased was taken to a Hospital at Duldula, from where, he was referred to the District Hospital, Ambikapur for better treatment. Subsequently, on 4.8.2014 i.e. after 7 days, during the course of treatment, Ramcharan succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, pursuant to which, an information was sent by the hospital to the police. Thereafter, Merg Intimation
Facts
{Ex.P/18 (Zero) & Ex.P/19 (numbered)} were recorded. The FIR was registered vide Ex.P/1 and investigation commenced. 3 Summons under Section 175 of CrPC were issued and inquest proceedings were also conducted vide Ex.P/3. The Nazari Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/17. The dead body of deceased Ramcharan was sent for the postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta (PW -18), who submitted the Postmortem Report vide Ex.-P/24. In the postmortem report, it was opined that the mode of death is coma caused by head injury leading to cardio pulmonary arrest and the death was homicidal in nature. The accused/appellant was arrested. On the memorandum statement-Ex.P/9 of the appellant/accused, one wooden plank and a Nicker (cloth) were recovered. Blood stained soil and plain soil were also recovered from the spot. Thereafter, the seized articles were sent for chemical examination and as per the FSL report (Ex.P/34), blood was found only on Article ‘B’ (soil) and on rest of the articles (A, C & D), no blood stains were found. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents, whereas, the appellant-accused in support of his defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4 5. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant herein for offence under Sections 302 and 323 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Legal Reasoning
Report (Ex. P/24), we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Ramcharan is homicidal 6 in nature is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 11. Now, the next question is, whether the prosecution has been able to prove that it is the appellant, who has caused injuries to deceased – Ramcharan? 12. The trial Court, after considering the statements of the eye- witnesses– Kishore Ram (PW-7) and Parsuram (PW-4) and that of Manaram (PW-5), who were also present on the spot alongwith the appellant and the deceased on the date and time of the offence, have clearly stated before the Court that it was the appellant who under anger and in heat of passion assaulted the deceased by means of wooden plank. All the said witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, but nothing could be extracted from them to hold that they are telling lie before the Court or they have not seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased. As such, the statements of the aforesaid witnesses insprie confidence and can be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the offence in question. Furthermore, basis of the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P/9, one wooden plank has been seized.As such, on the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant-accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased, due to which deceased succumbed to 7 the injuries and died. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding that it is the appellant-accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased, due to which she died, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 13. Now, the question is, whether the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC? 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana1 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of IPC, which state as under :- “23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen fro its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under : (a) Motive or previous enmity; (b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment; (c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury; (d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days; (e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury; (f) The age and general health condition of the accused; (g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight; (h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the 1 (2009) 15 SCC 635 8 injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted; (I) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused; (j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock; (k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused; (l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations; (m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident. Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment ? These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused. 24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.” 15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh2 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which read as under :- “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) 2 (2017) 3 SCC 247 9 “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 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 is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden 10 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”. 16. 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. 17. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under:- “16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required: (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 offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” 18. Reverting back to the facts of the present case in light of the above-mentioned principles of law laid down by their Lordships of 3 (2019) 6 SCC 122 11 the Supreme Court in above-stated judgments, it is quite vivid that since there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant, as on the date and time of the offence, only on account of sudden dispute, between the appellant and Manaram, the appellant started chasing him and, upon hearing the said dispute, the deceased- Ramcharan tried to intervene, but the appellant under sudden anger and in a heat of passion, assaulted the deceased by means of a wooden plank on his head, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and became unconscious. Though the incident occurred on 27.7.2014, but the deceased died on 4.8.2014 during the course of treatment at District Hospital, Ambikapur. However, considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased on his head, which is a vital part of the body, it is explicit that the though the appellant had no intention, but he must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him on the head of the deceased would likely to cause his 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. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 12 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC as well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the trial Court deserves to be set aside. Considering that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased but the injuries caused by him were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the appellant can well be convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC as well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the trial Court is hereby set aside. Instead thereof, the appellant is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and, for which, since the appellant remained in jail for a period of 3 years, 11 months and 15 days, he is sentenced to the period already undergo by him. However, the fine sentence and default stipulation imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. Conviction imposed on the appellant under Sections 323 of the IPC is maintained. Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, he need not surrender, however, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period of six months in view of provision contained under Section 437-A of CrPC. 21. This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 13 22. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Shyna /s@if
Arguments
6. Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the present is a case of no evidence. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injuries caused by the appellant were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He submits that the incident occurred on 27.7.2014, however, the deceased died on 4.8.2014 i.e. after 7 days, during the course of treatment and, therefore, the present is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and, since the appellant remained in jail for 3 years, 11 months and 15 days, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or part. 5 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. He further submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302 & 323 of IPC. He submits that Exception 04 to Section 300 of IPC would not attract in this case and further, it is not a case where conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC requires to be altered to Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 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 went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for consideration would be whether the death of deceased Ramcharan was homicidal in nature? 10. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding with regard to this question on the basis of Postmortem Report (Ex. P/24), wherein, Dr. Ajay Kumar Gupta (PW-18), who has conducted the postmortem, has clearly stated that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. As such, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the Postmortem