Shyamlal Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellants-accused persons herein is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.2016 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 130/2014 by which appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ₹ 5,000/- each; in default of payment of fine additional simple imprisonment for 6 months.

Case of the prosecution in, nutshell, is that on 12.07.2014, at village Hastinapur, Thana Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh, appellants namely Shyamlal Singh (A-1) by axe and Shivbhajan Singh (A-2) by wooden plank, assaulted their father Ramlal by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. It is further case of the prosecution that due to partition of land, dispute always used to take place between the appellants herein and their father Ramlal (now deceased). On the date of offence, quarrel took place between the appellants herein and Ramlal, with regard to partition of land and appellants assaulted their father Ramlal by axe and wooden plank, suspecting him that he gave his land to his brother Heeralal (PW-1) in partition, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. The matter was reported to the police by Roopsai (PW-4) father of the deceased. Merg Intimation and FIR were registered vide Exs. P/7 & P/6, respectively. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/1) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/12A), proved by Dr. Amit Kumar Jaiswal (PW-16), cause of death is cerebral concussion i.e. intradural haematoma and nature of death is homicidal. Articles were seized and sent for chemical analysis to FSL and in the FSL report (Ex.P/21) on Articles C & D i.e. wooden plank & axe respectively, blood was found.

After due investigation, appellants herein were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants / accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence.

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents and defence in support of its case has not examined any witness, but exhibited 4 documents (Exs.D/1 to D/4).

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants / accused persons for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that appellants have falsely been implicated in crime in question and they have been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He further submits that there is no legally admissible evidence against the appellants. He also submits that A-2 is alleged to have caused injury by wooden plank on the body of the deceased, but the postmortem report (Ex.P/12A) does not support the case of the prosecution and if the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, it would be a case, at the most, of commission of offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and the appellants are in jail since 13.07.2014, more than 9 years, and, as such, it is a fit case where conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted / altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part.

On the other hand, Mr. Ali Asgar, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence and it is not the case of alteration of offence from under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC where the conviction of the appellants can be modified for lesser offence, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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

Now, the first question is, whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature?

In this regard, the learned trial Court has recorded the finding in affirmative that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature on the basis of postmortem report (Ex.P/12A) proved by Dr. Amit Kumar Jaiswal (PW-16), which is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding.

Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant has assaulted the deceased?

Roopsai (PW-4), father of the deceased and grand-father of the appellants herein, and Phulmati Bai (PW-8), mother of the deceased and grand-mother of the appellants, have been examined and in their statements they have clearly stated that they had three sons namely Heeralal (PW-1), Jeetram (PW-12) & Ramlal (deceased) and they have partitioned the land amongst them, but two appellants (A-1 & A-2) suspected on their father Ramlal that he has given his part of property to their uncle Heerala (PW-1), and assaulted him by axe and wooden plank by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellants herein who assaulted their father Ramlal by axe and wooden plank by which he suffered grievous injuries and died, is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record and, as such, we hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court.

Now, the question is, whether the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC?

The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327 has 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 Sukhbir 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 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 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.”

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 has 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 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.

Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir vs. 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 principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-stated judgments, it is quite vivid that on the date of offence dispute with regard to partition of land arose between the appellants herein and their father Ramlal and suspecting on their father that he gave the part of his land to his brother Heeralal (PW-1), they assaulted him, out of anger, in the spur of moment by axe and wooden plank by which he suffered two grievous injuries, as per postmortem report (Ex.P/12A) proved by Dr. Amit Kumar Jaiswal (PW-16), and died. Considering the nature of injuries which have occurred on the body of the deceased and further considering the medical evidence available on the record, it is quite vivid that appellants must have had knowledge that such injuries inflicted by them on the body 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 appellants 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(s) had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC is altered to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC and the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone, as they are in jail since 13.07.2014, more than 9 years, however, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. Accordingly, appellants be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter.

This criminal appeal is partly allowed.

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where they are lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.

Certified copy as per rules.