Jivan Singh Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.21/2012, by which, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

CONVICTION

SENTENCE

Under Section 302 of IPC

Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.200/-,in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 28.12.2011 at about 3 PM at Village Zilda, Thana Pendra, District Bilaspur, the appellant herein has assaulted his father-Gangaram with the help of lathi and tangi, by which, he suffered grievous head injuries and he was taken to the hospital and during the course of treatment, he died. The appellant herein has made extra-judicial confession before Mahesh Kumar, PW-2, Dharam Singh, PW-3 and Brijbhan Singh, PW-5 that he has assaulted his father-Gangaram and thereafter, Brijbhan Singh, PW-5 called Village Kotwar-Ramprasad and reported the matter to Police Station Pendra, District Bilaspur and lodged First Information Report vide Ex.P-3 against the appellant herein, pursuant to which, offence under Section 302 of IPC was registered and the wheels of investigation started running. Thereafter, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-12. Morgue intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-2 and pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant herein vide Ex.P-8, lathi, tangi, Shirt and stole were seized vide Ex.P-9 and the said articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. In the FSL report, blood was found on the lathi, tangi as also on the lungi and vest (baniyan) of the deceased. Dead body was subjected to postmortem and postmortem of the dead body of the deceased-Gangaram was conducted by Dr. Johan Singh Kanwar, PW-6 and his report is Ex.P-6 and cause of death was hemorrhagic shock on account of grievous head injury and it was stated to be homicidal in nature. The jurisdictional police carried out the investigation and charge-sheeted the appellant herein under Section 302 of IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge for trial and hearing in accordance with law. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence and he has been falsely implicated in the offence in question.

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents Ex.P-1 to P-18. Statement of the appellant-accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence.

The learned trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, the instant appeal has been preferred.

Ms. Sareena Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that taking into consideration the prosecution case as it is as also considering the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, due to which, death has occurred, the appellant had knowledge, but there was no premeditation or intention to cause death, therefore, at the most, the case of appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C. and the alleged offence is liable to be converted to Part-II of Section 304 of I.P.C. and appellant be sentenced for the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 30.12.2011 and the appeal be allowed in part.

Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, would submit that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and it is not a case where the sentence of the appellant can be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased-Gangaram was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report Ex.P-6 proved by Dr. Johan Singh Kanwar, PW-6, according to which, cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to grievous head injury and it was stated to be homicidal in 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.

Now, the next question is, whether the appellant herein has assaulted his father-Gangaram by lathi and tangi and has caused the death ?

Considering the fact that the appellant has made extra-judicial confession before Mahesh Kumar, PW-2, Dharam Singh, PW-3 and Brijbhan Singh, PW-5 that he has assaulted his father-Gangaram with the help of lathi and tangi, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died and further considering the fact that pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant herein, lathi, tangi, shirt and stole were seized vide Ex.P-9, in which, blood was found, the trial Court has rightly recorded a finding that it is the appellant, who has caused death of deceased-Gangaram, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

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 can be altered either to Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ?

In order to consider whether the case of the appellant is covered under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, it would be appropriate to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327 wherein it has been observed as under :-

“21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the existence of common object Sukhir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.”

The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635, 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, 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 for 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 with premeditation in a sudden fight;

(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the 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 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.

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.”

Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It is further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death.

Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017) 3 SCC 247 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 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.”

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 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”.

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.

Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 6 SCC 122 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 passion; and

(iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the facts of the present case as also there is no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased-Gangaram, since on account of property dispute, altercation took place and the appellant herein has assaulted his father-Gangaram with the help of tangi and lathi, due to which, he suffered grievous head injury and thereafter, he was taken to the hospital and during the course of treatment, he died, but, there was no intention to cause death and he must have had knowledge that his act is likely to cause death and the appellant had not taken any undue advantage and has not acted in unusual manner; as such, the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C.

In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.21/2012 is hereby set aside. The conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is altered to Section 304 Part-I of the I.P.C. and the appellant is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, which the appellant has already undergone, as he is in jail since 30.12..2011 i.e. more than 12 years. Accordingly, we direct that appellant be released forthwith from jail, unless he is required in connection with any other offence.

In view of the above, 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 trial Court concerned for necessary information and action, if any. A certified copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence.