Partly allowed

Lalaram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Aug 2012CRA/472/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against a murder conviction, the High Court held that the appellant lacked intention to kill as he struck single blow without repeating it upon witness intervention. The court found knowledge but no intent, convicting him under Section 304 Part-11 IPC with a seven-year sentence instead of life imprisonment for murder.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 304 Part-11 IPC and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

Lalaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

^" ''"'"^~'w':^^'\ //"^ i3 >}S'BBfS2"'»S'>'vS&SSSS^

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶4

Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma, J J

¶5

Criminal Appeal No. 472 pf 2007

¶6

APPELLANT Lalaram, son of Dehalwar Rawut, Aged about 35 years, resident of Village Temri, Police Station Nandghat, District Durg (C.G.)

¶7

Versus

¶8

RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Nandghat, District Durg (C.G.)

¶9

(Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

¶10

Appearance:

¶11

Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. N.K. Mehta, Panel Lawyerforthe State.

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

(16.08.2012)

¶15

Following judgment of the Court was dictated on Board by Sunil KumarSinha, J.

¶16

(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30 of March, 2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 99/06 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.). By the impugned judgment the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.200/- with default sentence of S.l. for 1 month.

¶17

(2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-

¶18

The appellant had suspicion that deceased- Ganga Bai was a tonahi (a lady who plays witchcraft). The case of the prosecution is that on account of above suspicion, on 13.2.2006 at about 9.15

¶19

..''•'' ^•"' £.£^j vy

¶20

Cr.A. No. 472 of 2007

¶21

a.m. when Ganga Bai (deceased) was going to fetch water, the appellant assaulted her by a danda. Ganga Bai received single injury on her skull. It was a lacerated wound of12 cmx3 cm x bone deep. There was no corresponding bony injury. The Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. H.N. Gupta (PW-9), opined that the cause of death was coma on account of above head injury. The post-mortem reportis Ex.-P/13.

¶22

(3) Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased; he has argued that the appellant inflicted single injury out of sudden provocation after seeing the deceased as he was suspecting that the deceased was a tonahi; there was no bony injury; therefore, the appellant had no intention to commit murder of the deceased and in the above facts and circumstances of the case, an offence u/s 302 IPC would not be made out and the appellant would be liable for punishment under some lesser Section preferably Part-11 of Section 304 IPC.

¶23

(4) On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Mehta, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported thejudgment passed by the Sessions Court.

¶24

(5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case.

¶25

(6) The incident was witnessed by Jageshwar (PW-3) who is solitary eye-witness. Jageshwar (PW-3) narrated the incident to Krishna Kumar (PW-1 - son of the deceased). Krishna Kumar (PW-1) then took his mother to the nearest Community hlealth Centre (CHC), where she was declared dead. Krishna Kumar (PW-1) then lodged dehati merg intimation

¶26

'^\y

¶27

Cr.A. No. 472 of 2007

¶28

(Ex.-P/1) and dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/2). After the above reports, the Investigation Officer gave notice (Ex.-P/3) to the Panchas and inquest (Ex.-P/4) on the dead body of the deceased was prepared and then the body was sent for post-mortem in which the Autopsy Surgeon noted above injury which was ante-mortem and he deposed that the death was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the deceased died homicidal death on account of injury sustained by her which was caused by the appellant.

¶29

(7) Now we shall consider the argument relating to Section 302 vis-avis Section 304 IPC.

¶30

(8) Section 304 IPC provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It draws a distinction between the penalty to be inflicted incases, where, an intention to kill being present, the act would have amounted to murder, but for its having fallen within one of the Exceptions in Section 300, and cases in which the crime is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, that means, where there is knowledge that death will be a likely result, but the intention to cause death, or bodily injury likely to cause death, is absent. The first part of Section 304 applies where there is intention, whereas the second part applies where there is knowledge but the important thing is that before holding the accused guilty^underany part^{ofSection304,ithastobeobservedthatadeath} must have been caused by him under any of the circumstances mentioned in the five Exceptions to Section 300, which include death caused while deprived of power of self-control under grave and sudden provocation, while exercising in good faith the right of private defence of

¶31

Cr.A.No. 472 of 2007

¶32

person^or property,^{andinasuddenfightintheheatof} passion^without premeditation. Knowledge of consequences which may result in doing an act is quite different than the intention which denotes that a particular consequence should ensure. For attracting the former part of Section 304, an element of intention is a factor whereas for attracting the later part, an element of knowledge is a factor. The intention is the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular result, whereas, the knowledge is an awareness which attributes to be well i'nformed that a pari:icular result may happen by doing a thing.

¶33

(9) In case on hand, the incident took place in front of the house of the appellant. It took place at about 9.15 a.m.. At that time the deceased was going^{tofetchwatertoawater} point.^{Assoonasthedeceasedreached} near the house of the appellant, the appellant gave single blow by lathi to the deceased. The appellant was suspecting that the deceased was a tonahi. The case of the prosecution is that Jageshwar (PW-3) immediately reached to the place of occurrence and he tried to intervene. Jageshwar (PW-3) had caught the appellant and had dragged him to some distance, but he was threatened by the appellant. We find that it is not a case in which the appellant repeated the blows because prior to intervention by Jageshwar (PW-3) he was in a position to repeat the blow and after leaving him by Jageshwar, he would have repeated the blow, but he did not do so. This shows that the appellant had no intention to commit murder of the deceased. We further note that one lacerated wound was sustained on account of single blow on the right occipital region, but there was no corresponding fracture on the underline bone, which further indicate the intensity of the blow and the force applied by

¶34

CrA.No. 472 of 2007

¶35

the appellant while giving blow to the deceased. Though the above act of the appellant does not show his intention to commit murder of the deceased, but it certainly attributes knowledge that his above act was likely to cause death or to cause such bodily injury to the deceased as is likely to cause death. We are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, an offence u/s 302 IPC would not be made out and the appellant would be liable for punishment under Part-11 of Section 304 IPC.

¶36

(10) For the foregoing reasons, we partly allow this appeal and setaside the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant u/s 302 IPC. Instead thereof, the appellant is convicted u/s 304 Part-11 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.l. for 7 years. The appellant is in jail since 14.2.2006. He shall be entitled to set-offthe period already undergone.

¶37

Sd/Sd/Sunil Kumar Sinha R.S. Sharma Judge Judge

¶38

vatti

Lalaram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalaram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Gopal Vs the State of M.P.

Manoj Kumar Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chamaru Korwa Vs State

Manmohan Vs State of M.P.

Deo Lal Mandawi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sangeeta Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh