Raigarh, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S
Case Details
1 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.01.28 10:02:31 +0530 2025:CGHC:4650-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1718 of 2019 {Arising out of judgment dated 26.102.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.62/2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh} Nohar Singh, S/o. Devmun Raut, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village - Potra, P.S. - Lailunga, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S.- Lailunga, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
nature, which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 9. Now, the next question is, whether the appellant has caused the death of deceased Niranjan Raut ? 10. Considering the statements of the eye-witnesses Lalit Raut (PW-1), Nanmati (PW-2) & Chudamani (PW-4) and considering the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellant who had caused injury to the deceased and further considering the fact that pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, weapon of offence i.e. axe has been recovered, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellant who had caused the death of deceased is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is 6 neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 11. Now, the question would be whether the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C. and, as such, his conviction under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 12. 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 :- “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 assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it 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 hit of anger. Of course, the 1 (2017) 3 SCC 247 7 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 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 8 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”. 13. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested for bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C., which reads as under: “16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. 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.” 14. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death, as the appellant and deceased both are closed relative i.e. cousins and furthermore, after a brief quarrel between them as per the statement of the eye-witnesses Lalit Raut (PW-1), Nanmati (PW-2) and Chudamani (PW-4), the 2 (2019) 6 SCC 122 9 appellant, out of sudden anger, in a heat of passion, is said to have assaulted the deceased by axe, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, though there was no premeditation and intention on the part of appellant to cause death, but the appellant must have had knowledge that the injuries caused by him is likely to cause death and, as such, the case of appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C. 15.
Arguments
: Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board (27.01.2025) 2 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No.62/2018, by which, while acquitting the other accused Pusanand, the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 30 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.06.2018 at about 09:10 A.M. at village Potra, Police Station- Lailunga, District Raigarh, the appellant herein and acquitted co- accused have assaulted one Niranjan Raut by axe, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby, the offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-6 and dead body of deceased Niranjan was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Gulshan Kumar Sidar (PW-6), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-16, according to 3 which, cause of death was stated to be hemorrhagic shock due to intracranial hemorrhage by forcefully trauma and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-8), the weapon of offece i.e. axe was seized vide Ex.P-10. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that taking into the prosecution case as it is, 4 at the best, the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. is made out against the appellant as per the statement of the eye-witnesses Lalit Raut (PW-1), Nanmati (PW-2) & Chudamani (PW-4) that after a brief quarrel between the appellant and deceased, who are closed relative, the appellant, out of sudden anger, in a heat of passion, is said to have assaulted the deceased; therefore, the conviction of appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and he be sentenced for the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 15.06.2018. 6. Mr. Ashish Shukla with Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsels, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. They further submit that it is not a case where the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C.; therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5 8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Niranjan was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-16) proved by Dr. Gulshan Kumar Sidar (PW-6), according to which, cause of death was stated to be hemorrhagic shock due to intracranial hemorrhage by forceful trauma and death was homicidal in
Decision
In view of the above, the conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 15.06.2018. 16. 17. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Ashok Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge