1 - Dharamraj Markam @ Chheduram S/o Rupchand Aged About 30 Years R/o Village v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer Police Station Keshkal District Kondagaon
Case Details
1 A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2025:CGHC:3607-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1804 of 2019 1 - Dharamraj Markam @ Chheduram S/o Rupchand Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Harrapadav Keshkal, Thana Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer Police Station Keshkal District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh., ... Respondent(s) For the appellant : Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate
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. 8. Now the next question is whether the appellant has caused the death of his mother Mana Bai. 9. The trial Court has proceeded to convict the accused on the basis of testimonies of eye-witnesses namely P.W.1 Roopchand Markam, husband of deceased, who has lodged the report against accused; P.W.2 Poornima Shori, daughter of deceased, P.W.9 Nandini Markam, another daughter of deceased and P.W.13 Devendra Markam, son of deceased which further stood firm by the evidence of Dr.J.P.Kaushik (P.W.8). All these witnesses have unequivocally stated that the 5 appellant assaulted his mother Mana Bai and caused grievous injuries which resulted in her death. P.W.1 Roopchand, husband of deceased has stated that the appellant demanded money from his mother and the same having been refused by the mother she was assaulted by the appellant. At para 7, P.W.1 further states that the accused used to quarrel after consuming liquor. He has further categorically stated that because of the assault made by the appellant, his wife Mana Bai had died and the incident was also witnessed by other family members and also by his neighbor Lachuman. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant has caused death of his mother, which cannot be said to be unsustainable. 10. Now the question would be whether the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and as such, his conviction under Section 302 of IPC can be altered to Section 304 Part II of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? 11. A careful perusal of statements of of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.9 and P.W.13 unequivocally shows that the deceased was assaulted by the accused/appellant and all of a sudden the incident took place. However, the fact cannot be deduced from such evidence that there was any premeditation and intention of the appellant to cause death of his mother and the accused had taken any undue advantage. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017) 3 SCC 247 has held that 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 Exception to 6 Section 300 of IPC. Paras 20 & 21 of the said decision wherein the issue was dealt with elaborately are relevant and quoted hereinbelow: “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 wsudden 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 durinfg the ofcurrence 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 heat 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 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 Armugam 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 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : ( SCC p.596, para 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 7 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 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”. 12. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that when and 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 a case of Section 304 Part II of IPC. 13. Bearing in mind 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. The incident 8 took place all of a sudden and the act was done in a heat of passion. 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 of his mother and, as such, the case of appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. 14.
Arguments
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer Division Bench Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (21.01.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J, 2 1. This appeal under section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon in Sessions Trial No. 18/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of to under undergo additional RI for 2 months. However, the accused was acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable u/s 506-B of IPC as it was not proved beyond doubt. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Mana Bai was the mother of accused Dharamraj Markam. On the date of incident on 10.12.2018, deceased was cleaning utensils in her house. In the morning at 6.30 a.m., her son, accused Dharamraj came out of his room and asked her to give him food. Then her mother stated that she had not cooked the food, then accused asked his mother to give money for purchasing Ghutka, cigarette etc. When she refused to give money, the accused became furious and started quarreling with her and assaulted his mother Mana Bai with kicks and wooden sticks, thereby Mana Bai sustained grievous injuries on her head and blood came out of her mouth. She was brought to Keshkal Hospital in unconscious state where the duty Doctor declared her to be brought dead. Merg intimation was made vide Ex.P-19, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-7 and the dead body of the deceased Mana Bai was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. J.P. Kaushik (P.W.8) who proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-16), 3 according to which, the cause of death was sudden cardio-respiratory arrest due to head injury and the death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-9), wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P-4. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 & 506-B of IPC 3. The accused/appellants pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 13 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 of CrPC in which he denied the charges and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. The learned Special Judge after evaluating the evidence, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that all of a sudden incident took place and at the most the offence u/s 304 Part II of IPC is made out against the appellant, as the incident took place in sudden heat of provocation and most of the injuries were contusions & abrasions and as such, there was no premeditation and intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of his mother. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence u/s 302 IPC be converted to section 304 Part II of IPC and he be sentenced for the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 11.12.2018. 5. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State Counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to 4 bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. He further submits that it is not a case where the conviction of appellant for the offence u/s 302 IPC can be converted to Section 304 Part II of IPC, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The first question for consideration, as to whether the death of deceased was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court relying upon the post mortem report Ex.P.16 proved by Dr.J.P. Kaushik (P.W.8), according to which, the mode of death was sudden cardio respiratory arrest due to head injury which was homicidal in
Decision
In view of the above, the conviction of appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is altered to Section 304 Part II of IPC and the appellant is sentenced to 8 years RI instead of Life Imprisonment, maintaining the fine amount and its default sentence. 15. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned Trial Court and the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is presently lodged and suffering his jail sentence be also supplied with a copy of this judgment, for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao