Partly allowed

Madakami Pedaram @ Soansuram v. State

Chhattisgarh HC1 Sept 2014CRA/1553/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside conviction under Section 302 IPC for a murder arising from a sudden quarrel over a paddy dispute. The court held the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II IPC) due to lack of premeditation and acted in heat of passion.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; convicted of Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to period already undergone in jail.

Madakami Pedaram @ Soansuram Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

"CF'0000062814 <^ A. Vs-S-3^3
^
APPEAI. P^tSGNER

¶2

•-5 No. s^2)<a_ Name^^S^r^^r::?;p7 €"^^R^ITf Father'sName; ^__ Resident 's:^RT¥r_^T^n'..^g^3J^rj Age'A£g3 Sentenced to,*§5F»rtKFST;a3i-:?Jic-\ Kf •<?zion. 2,;^Q,3'a> , ' ,:)&Ct^,ST^a^@^S^ UnderS tton s, &a '2- P.c. by -^ff- ^r^^r- -s^-<y< • .•i^S^T '3syf:?r-iSC'f,yF^sV£^-'^^^vsiU^ It is explaioed to the pnsoner thaF ff Hestafes or wishesto be representeA by a legal practitioner the Appellate Court will not proceed with the base fpr seven <¥ days • '• ualess • • . the legal .••.-. practitioner ' " ...... ...-':••-. aRpears, -••- :.-^" ' ..:^If ^," the . ^- legal '- :•" practitioner '' •••••" does uot appeai withih seven days he may ^be heard at all if tegal practitiouer the court may procfed at once with the case and "will not be abljged togive a bearing to legal practilioner who slipuld appear.

¶3

Date ofa.^ilication for eopy of Judgement:-

¶4

Date of which copy received :-

¶5

'z-^.-y^

¶6

Date onwhich appealsent:•2-;aio, ~-;

¶7

Whether the prisoner wisl}ed to be

¶8

represented or nbt :-

¶9

Yes / No.

¶10

No. 2.<£>°-/"•5 Name /-^ <^ ^ •^-s'-sasf-sHt i-fc^ •-<1'34 ^" •-^i)»1i~!9."\1'hf -> -^<?-<'T Continued in c Jail -<—?;^'•=&>. '-^ "•!:<-w!^< No. I r^'^6 .Dated 16- <2-.

¶11

I.I.E- Forwarded to the CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

¶12

tegether with a copy of Judgement or order ESssed ia the case for favour of traBsmission to tfae properApplieate Court.

¶13

Su perintendeqt^ tt-^Sub-Jail,

¶14

Date of icceipt in C J. M. Office.

¶15

¶16

Date of receipt of record to accompany.

¶17

Memo of Appeal of theAppellate Court. •^-^
No. . 5^ dated _J.3.
Forwaided to the._h/1-/^)" ^TST SWC^~'^
unr )Tft
"-?-' snfvK «r».

¶18

R. MAGISTRATB

¶19

Oate Of receipt in-Applieate Court'.^

¶20

¶21

"•^.. '•^'•ii'.:"~ •4e^ ..^••:'i :y

¶22

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J

¶24

Cr.A. No.1553 of 1999

¶25

Appellant

¶26

Madkami Pedaram @ Sonasuram

¶27

VERSUS

¶28

Respondent • StateofM.P.(nowCG)

¶29

Present: Smt. Kiran Jain, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P.L for the respondent/State.

¶30

JUDGMENT (01.09.2014)

¶31

This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction ahd order of sentence dated 02.02.99 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur in S.T. No. 149/98 cpnvicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- plus default stipulation.

¶32

In the present case, name of the deceased is Maadvi Hoonga. It is alleged that on 6.1.98 accused/appellant had gone to the house of deceased and called him for giving some paddy, and when the deceased wentalong with his wife, accused/appellant asked him that he owe Rs. 5 f to him for consuming liquor and therefore he will not give paddy. Thereafter quarrel started between them in which the appellant gave a solitary blow of club on the head of the deceased as a result of which he sustained injury on his head. On 7.1.98, deceased lodged a report which was recorded in the rojnamcha sanha vide Ex.P-15 and he was hospitalized at Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur.where on 15.1.98, he succumbed.to his ihjuries, memo Ex. P-5 was sent from the hospital on

3i-

n •V

•7 <>

which basis merg intimation (Ex. P-8) was recorded. Postmortem examination on the body of deceased was conducted on 16.1.98 by Dr. K.B.Sharma (PW-4) vide Ex.P-2 who noticed one injury on the head of the deceased and found fracture of parietal bone ofthe skull. According to him, cause of death is dup to coma as a result of head injury. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant, acquitted accused Roop Dhar and wife of accused/appellant Madkami Lakmi (absconding) under Sections 302,34 and 325 IPC. Accordingly charges were framed under Section 302/34 IPC.

¶39

¶40

In order to establish the guilt of the accused persons prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. Statements ofthe accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

¶41

After hearing the parties, vide judgment and order dated 02.02.99 learned court below has acquitted accused Roop Dhar of all the offences but has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph one ofthejudgment. Hence the present appeal.

¶42

Contention of counsel for the appellants is as under :

¶43

fr. i) That the statement of eyewitnesseS Maadvi Aayti (PW-1) and Madkami r Ganga (PW-2) are npt very reliable and considering the omissions and contradictions in the statement of these witnesses accused/appellant deserve to be acquitted.

¶44

ii) That even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, it is apparent that only one injury was caused by the accused/appellant and there was no intention on his part to commit the murder of deceased, the incident took place all of a sudden without any premeditation or preparation on the

¶45

¶46

part of the accused/appellants and therefore the act of the accused/appellant would come under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.

¶47

iii) That the appellant has remained in jail for more than seven years and therefore after converting his conviction from Section 302 to section 304 (Part-11) IPC, his senteoce may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

¶48

•i ,

¶49

On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that the conviction of the accused/appellant is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same.

¶50

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶51

Maadvi Aayti (PW-1) - wife of the deceased has stated that on the date of incident accused/appellant came to her house and asked her husband to come to his house for collecting paddy. She has stated that when she along with her husband went to his house the accused/appellant told her husband that he owe Rs. 5/- to him and therefore he would not give him any paddy and the accused/appellant gave one club blow on the head of the deceased pursuant to a quarrel as a result of which he fell down. ^he has stated that the incident was r witnessed by Ganga (PW-2) and after the incident her husband was taken to his house and then to police station from where the police sent him to Maharani Hospital.Jagdalpur where the deceased survived for two weeks. Madkami Ganga (PW-Z)-eyewitness to the incident, while supporting the prosecution case has stated that there was some hot talks between the accused/appellant and the deceased. for payment of Rs. 5/and thereafter appellant gave a club blow on the head ofthe deceased as

¶52

^:.-!^

¶53

a result of which he fell down. He has stated that at first he was taken to the police station and then to hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Maadvi Joga (PW-3) has stated that he came to know about the incident from the wife of deceased. He is also a witness to inquest Ex.P1. Dr. K.B.Sharma (PW-4) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Hoonga and found fracture of left parietal region of the skull and according to him, cause of death is coma due to head injury. Dr. Govind Singh (PW-5) is the ratiiologist who took x-ray Ex.P-3 of the deceased and gave his report (Ex.P-4). According to him there was fracture of left parietal bone of skull. Dr. S.S.Tekam (PW-6) had medically examined the deceased (Hoonga) at first when he was brought to hospital on 7.1.98 and he noticed injury on the head of the deceased, According to him the injury could have been caused by hard and blunt object and he referred him to district hospital Jagdalpur. Anukul chand (PW-7)- Head Constable prepared inquest and had<> sent the body for postmortem examination. R.K.Saksena (Pw-8) is the Investigating Officer who has duly supported the prosecution case. S.L.Sinha (PW-9) is the constable who helped in the investigation. Bodhiram Tirhe (PW-10) Head Constable had also helped in the investigation.

¶54

Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on the date of incident accused/appellant called..the deceased to his house for giving him paddy and there he told him that he (deceased) owe Rs. 5/- to him for consuming liquor and therefore he will not give paddy, quarrel took place between them and in which the appellant gave a solitary blow of club on his. head as a result of whieh he sustained injury and succumbed to his injury after being admitted in hospital for about two weeks. As such involvement bfthe accused/appellant in commissiori ofthe offence stands proved beyond all the reasonable doubt.

¶55

II II i

¶56

Now the question for determination of this court is as to whether the act of the accused/appellant would fall under any of the exceptions to 300 of IPC or not?

¶57

The evidence goes to show that on the date of incident, on being called by the accused/appellqnt the deceased went to his house for getting paddy but when the appellant refused to give the same, quarrel took place between them, the accused/appellant dealt only one blow of club on the head of the deceased which ultimately resulted in his death. Thus keeping in view the manner in which the incident had occurred it is apparent that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused/appellant, the incident occurred on a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and he did not act in an unusual or cruel ^ manner as such act ofthe accused/appellant is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC that is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, considering the nature and extent of injury caused by the appellant on the vital part of the deceased with such a force resulting in his death, it appears that though the accused/appellant had no intention to cause death of the deceased but had the knowledge that the injury inflicted by him was likely to cause^is death.

¶58

Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC is not based on the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record and taking into consideration all aspects ofthe matter, he can at best be convicted under Section 304 (Part-11) IPC. Order accordingly. It is reported that the accused/appellant has already remained inside for 7 years. In the peculiar

¶59

¶60

facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it fit not to send '•"m back to jail again and the ends of justice would be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶61

In the result, the conviction ofthe appellant under Section 302 and the sentence imposed thereunder are set aside and instead he is convicted under Section 304 (Part-11) IPC and sentenced to the period

¶62

already undergone by him.

¶63

Though on 21.3.14, bail granted to the appellant was cancelled by this Court but it has been informed that till date the appellant has not been arrested. In view of this, no further order is required. His bail bonds shall however continue for a period of six months from today in view of

¶64

437-A Cr.P.C. ._ ——Sd/Sd/Pritinker Diwaker ChiefJustice Judge

¶65

Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

¶66

suguna

Madakami Pedaram @ Soansuram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madakami Pedaram @ Soansuram v. State

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

Abdul Salim and Another Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh

Bhagola and Ors. Vs the State of Madhaya Pradesh

Ramesh Kumar And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dhalan Singh @ Raju Thakur Vs State

Lala Mukunda @ Mukunda Vs State

Bajranglal Soni Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Ors.