Sulendra Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

(1) This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., by the appellant-accused is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2016, passed by the Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Sessions Case No.18 of 2016, whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months.

(2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 27-28.11.2015, at Vilage Ramnagar within the ambit of Police Station Brishrampur, the accused-appellant herein assaulted his wife namely, Indraso Bai (for short the “deceased”) by means of lathi/danda, hand and fist, due to which, she suffered grievous injuries and died and, thereby, the appellant is said to have committed offence under Section 302 of IPC.

(3) The further case of the prosecution is that on the date of offence, at about 08:00 PM in the evening, when appellant herein returned to his house, his wife (deceased) was found under the influence of hadiya liquor and she has also not given food to her 04 minor children, on account of which, the appellant became angry and assaulted his wife (deceased) by means of firewood, hand and fist, due to which, deceased suffered injuries and fell down on the floor in faint condition. Thereafter, the appellant brought the deceased in conscious state by pouring water on her and also gave her water to drink, thereafter, the deceased slept in the night and in the next morning she died.

(4) Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police by Banarasi (PW-06), pursuant to which, the police registered marg intimation (Ex.P/12) and FIR (Ex.P/13 & P/13A) and wheels of investigation started running, in which, inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/03 and summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/02. Spot map was also prepared vide Ex.P/23. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem report (Ex.P/10), conducted by Dr. J.S. Saruta (PW-05), it was opined that the cause of death of deceased is shock due to multiple fractures on vital organs (i.e. head etc.) and nature of death is homicidal. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/21 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/ 04. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, one danda and his lower, which was wore by him at the time of incident, have been seized vide Ex.P/05. The aforesaid seized danda and lower alongwith other seized articles were sent for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P/27), it has been opined that blood stains were found on the said seized danda and lower. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

(5) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents apart from Article-A/ 1 to A/9, whereas the appellant in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

(6) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

(7) Mr. Tarun Dansena, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In alternative, learned counsel submits that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted as it is, then also the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased in spur of the moment, as on the date of offence, when appellant reached to his house, his wife (deceased) was found under the influence of hadiya liquor and have also not served food to their 04 minor children, on account of which, the appellant became angry and assaulted the deceased, due to which she suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, there was no motive or premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under anger and in heat of passion the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of lathi/danda, hand and fist, due to which she suffered grievous injuries and died. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of IPC and as the appellant is in jail since 29.11.2015 i.e. more than 08 years, he be awarded the sentence for the period already undergone by him. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part.

(8) Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. In view of the statements of prosecution witnesses, specially Banarasi (PW-06) coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. It is also submitted that Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC is not attracted in this case and it is not the case where conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC requires to be altered to Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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

(10) The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/10), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of deceased is shock due to multiple fractures on vital organs (i.e. head etc.) and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. J.S. Saruta (PW-05). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/10) and the statement of Dr. J.S. Saruta (PW-05), who has conducted postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirm the said finding.

(11) Now, the next question would be whether the accused-appellant herein has caused injuries over the body of the deceased, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the statements of Banarasi (PW-06), upon which, marg intimation (Ex.P/12) and FIR (Ex.P/13) were registered by the police against the appellant. Further, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the accused-appellant recorded vide Ex.P/04, lathi and his lower have been seized vide Ex.P/05, in which as per FSL report (Ex.P/27), blood stains were found. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant-accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased, due to which deceased succumbed to the injuries and died. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding that it is the appellant-accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased, due to which she died, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

(12) The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, which is, whether the case of the appellant is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant?

(13) 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 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 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”.

(14) 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.

(15) 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 to 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.”

(16) Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-mentioned judgments, it is quite vivid that in the instant case, on the date and time of the offence, when appellant herein returned to his house, his wife (deceased) was found under the influence of hadiya liquor and she has also not given food to her 04 minor children, on account of which, the appellant became angry and assaulted his wife (deceased) by means of firewood (lathi/danda), hand and fist, due to which, deceased suffered injuries and died. As such, there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, but only because of sudden quarrel, in anger and under heat of passion, the appellant assaulted the deceased, due to which she suffered grievous injuries and died. However, looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased, though the appellant had no intention, but he must have had knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him on the body of the deceased would likely to cause her 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 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 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 and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC.

(17) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Considering that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased but the injuries caused by him were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and as the appellant is in jail since 29.11.2015 i.e. more than 08 years, he is awarded the sentence for the period already undergone by him. However, the fine sentence and default stipulation imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. Consequently, the appellant be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other crime/matter.

(18) This criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

(19) Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action, if any.