State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramnath
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:54-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1821 of 2019 1 - Ramnath Kanwar S/o Boko Kanwar Aged About 51 Years Occupation Agriculturistl/abour, R/o Village Kot, Kapapara, P.S.- Sitapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate For State / : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, GA Respondent(s) Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ Judgment on Board 02/01/2025 Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused herein under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2019, passed in Sessions Case No. 44 of 2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramnath 2 Kanwar), by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 16.01.2018 complainant Balwant made a merg intimation before Police Station Seetapur that at about 8 AM he was at home then the Sarpanch of village Kartikram came there and informed that on 15.01.2018 at about 7 PM his cousin appellant-accused on account of domestic
Legal Reasoning
dispute committed the murder of his wife deceased (Shripati). Upon which he went to the house of the appellant-accused along with Sarpanch Kartikram (PW-4) informed that the dead body of the deceased Shripati was lying on the heap of hey and her feet were covered with a piece of cloth. Blood was oozing from the nose of deceased Shripati upon which Merg No. 07/2018 Ex. P-2 was registered and named FIR No. 10/2018 under Section 302 IPC (Ex.P- 1) was followed against the appellant-accused. Spot Map Ex.P-3 was prepared by Investigating Officer. Inquest Ex. P-16 was prepared after giving notice to the witnesses Ex. P-15. Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Sunita Toppo (PW-3) who gave her report Ex. P-9. Memorandum Ex. P-12 of the appellant was recorded and upon which the wooden fari was seized vide Ex. P-13. Blood stained and plain soil was seized vide Ex. P-11. Vide Ex. P-4 the appellant was arrested. A query was made to the doctor whether the injury present on the body of the deceased would be caused by the 3 weapon produced before the doctor for examination i.e. wooden piece. The doctor in turn gave her opinion in affirmative vide query report Ex. P-10A. FSL report Ex. P-18 received from the laboratory also indicates that the articles sent for chemical examination including the wooden piece contained human blood. 3. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted before the concerned Magistrate Court and after committal, the matter was received by the Trial Court for its trial and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. On conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Court, finally by impugned judgment dated 04.10.2019, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, which has been assailed by the appellant in the instant appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence collected by the prosecution is not sufficient for holding the accused guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC and the 4 learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective while convicting and sentencing the appellant. He submits that the statements of the witnesses do not inspire confidence as there are several contradiction and omission in the same. He further submits that act attributed to the appellant if seen in the light of the evidence collected by the prosecution, falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and therefore, he at the most, can be convicted under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC. Lastly, he submits that as the appellant is in jail since 16.01.2018 and thereby has served the jail sentence of more than six years and eleven months, the sentence imposed on him may be reduced to the period already undergone. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramnath Prasad and others reported in (1998) 9 SCC 49. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge holding the accused/appellant guilty under Sections 302 IPC being based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record are fully justified and do not call for any interference in this appeal, and being so the appeal is liable to the dismissed. 8. Heard counsel for the parties at length and went through the evidence on record with utmost care and caution. 9. The first and foremost question to be decided by this Court is as to whether the death of deceased Shripati was homicidal in nature ? This issue has been death with by the trial Court and answered in 5 affirmative relying upon the statement of PW-03 Dr. Sunita Toppo, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased and also proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-9) in which cause of his death has been opined to be coma as a result of head injury caused, intercranial hemorrhage and the death was homicidal in nature, which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding of the Trial Court holding that the death of deceased Shripati was homicidal in nature. 10. The next question is who caused the death of the deceased ? The key witness in this case appears to be the complainant PW-1. He has stated that after being informed by the Sarpanch about the death of the Shripati he came to her house where blood was found spilled on the ground and at that time her husband (accused-appellant) was not at home. He has stated that he did not see anyone assaulting the deceased. In the cross-examination he has stated that after marriage, the deceased and the accused lived together for 10 years but thereafter, for a long period of 10-15 years that the deceased had stayed in her maternal home along with her children. He has further stated that even during the stay at her maternal home whenever she used to visit her matrimonial village, she used to live in the house of her relatives and not at the house of accused-appellant. He has further stated that 3-4 days prior to the incident the accused was not seen in the village much less in the house. He has further stated that as the son of the deceased was suffering from mental illness, the 6 deceased had come to the house of the accused-appellant with him and was living with him. He has reiterated that he has not seen the occurrence and the report lodged by him was totally based on the information collected by the people of the village. Aneshwar Singh (PW-2) is hearsay witness and he has stated that on the next day of the incident he came to know through the villagers about the death of the wife of the accused and that when he went to his house the accused-appellant was not there. He has admitted that he did not see accused assaulting the deceased and cannot even say anything as to how her death took place. Dr. Sunita Toppo (PW-3) conducted the postmortem examination and gave her report Ex. P-9. She has stated that there was a lacerated wound on the occipital region of the deceased in the size of 17.2x2.5x3.5 cm with fracture. According to her, the cause of death was coma due to internal bleeding from the injury on head, which could be caused by the wooden piece. From the evidence of Panmeshwar (PW-7) also it does not appear that the incident was seen by him. He has just stated that when he returned home after watching from the neighborhood he saw the dead body of his mother lying on the ground and the blood oozed from the head injury was spilled on the flour. According to him, the accused- appellant was not present in the house at that time and had run away after killing his mother. He has stated that on the next day when the police came and enquired from the accused, he disclosed about killing his mother with the wooden piece. He has reiterated that the incident was not seen by him. He has admitted that the statement made by him is based on the things heard by him. He has further stated that 7 the relations between the accused-appellant and the deceased were cordial. FSL report Ex. P-18 received from the laboratory also indicates that the articles sent for chemical examination including the wooden piece contained human blood. It is thus clear that the evidence does not go to show the involvement of the any person other than the accused in the commission of the crime in question. 11. Now the question is whether the conviction of the accused- appellant under Section 302 IPC is justified or would it fall under Section 304 (Part-I) or 304 (Part-II) IPC. In order to consider this aspect of the matter, it would be appropriate to notice herein the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh1 in which their Lordships have 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) “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 1 (2017) 3 SCC 247 8 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 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 and there was no sudden quarrel premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage 9 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 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. 13. Further, the Supreme Court also 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 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 pas- sion; and (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.” 14. If the evidence available on record its seen, the act of the accused-appellant cannot entail the conviction under Section 302 IPC, rather it 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 2 (2019) 6 SCC 122 10 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. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and his conviction under Section 302 of IPC can be altered to one under Part-II of Section 304 of IPC and it is according held so. 15. Consequent thereupon, we set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the sentence of Life Imprisonment awarded thereunder as well. Instead, we convict him for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and sentence him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (Ten) years, maintaining the fine amount and its default sentence awarded by the Tribunal. 16. As a result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the Trial Court and the concerned Superintendent of Jail be also supplied with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Pawan