Manijar Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CRA No.1008 of 2017

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1008 of 2017

¶6

{Arising out of judgment dated 09.03.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. R-30/2014 by the learned Additional Judge in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, Dist-Surguja (C.G)}

¶7

Manijar Ram S/o Taharram Bargah, Aged About 40 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Podikala, Police Station Shankargarh, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. Civil District Sarguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

-------------------------------- For Appellant	-------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni,
	Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by
	C.G. High Court Legal Services
	Committee.
For Respondent-State	: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A.

¶13

DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (19.02.2024)

¶14

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶15

(1) This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.03.2017, passed by the learned Additional Judge in the Court of

¶16

2

¶17

CRA No.1008 of 2017

¶18

Additional Session Judge, Ramanujganj, Dist-Sarguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. R-30/2014, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for fifty days.

¶19

(2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.1.2014, at Village Ghughrikala, under Police Station-Shankargarh, District Balrampur (C.G.), the appellant-Manijar Ram assaulted his father deceased-Tahar Ram by axe (tangi), on account of which, he suffered grievous injuries and died, thereby committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶20

(3) The further case of the prosecution is that, complainantKunwar Sai (PW-1) lodged a report at Police StationShankargarh that on date of incident i.e. 06-01-2014, deceased(Tahar Ram) along with his son-in-law i.e. Ramlal (PW-05) had gone to village-Ghugrikala to the house of his nephew-Suresh (PW-04). The appellant/accused was also present in the house of Suresh. Subsequently, a dispute occurred between the appellant/accused and deceased (Tahar Ram) regarding the domestic matters and distribution of paddy, then the appellant/accused assaulted his father deceased(Tahar

¶21

3

¶22

CRA No.1008 of 2017

¶23

Ram) twice by axe (tangi) on his neck and absconded from the spot. Ramlal (PW-05) tried to intervened the matter and informed the complainant-Kunwar Sai(PW-01) i.e. younger son of deceased. When Kunwar Sai reached the spot, he saw his father-Tehar Ram(deceased) was lying down and blood was oozing out from his left side of his neck. Thereafter, the deceased (Tahar Ram) was taken to hospital, Shankargarh by ambulance, where he died. On the basis of information given by the complainant-Kunwar Sai (PW-1), the police registered an FIR (Ex.P-01) at zero in P.S. Shankargarh on 06-01-2014. Thereafter, FIR (Ex.P-1/A) was registered against the appellantManijar Ram at P.S. Kusmi, Dist: Balrampur (C.G.) in crime No.03/14 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC on the same day. Merg intimation (Ex/P-2/A) was registered and spot map vide Ex.P/08 was prepared. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/14-A), Dr. Jagrani (PW-15) opined that the cause of death of deceased-Tahar Ram was excessive bleeding haemorrhage and the nature of death was homicidal. Thereafter, appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/15 and his memorandum statement was recorded (Ex.P/10) pursuant to which, seizure of articles (Exs.P/11 & 12) were made and sent for chemical examination to FSL but FSL report has not been exhibited. After completing the investigation, the final report was

4

CRA No.1008 of 2017

prepared.

(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either.

¶28

(5) 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 herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶29

(6) Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and taking the case of the prosecution as it is, only offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is made out against the appellant, as the appellant has no motive to cause death of the deceased. Thus, 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

¶30

5

¶31

CRA No.1008 of 2017

¶32

can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and, further, since the appellant is in jail since 08.01.2014 i.e. more than 10 years, taking into consideration the period he has already undergone, the appellant-accused be released from jail forthwith. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed.

¶33

(7) Per-contra , Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, 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. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Exception 04 to Section 300 of IPC is not attracted in this case and it is not a case where conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC requires to be altered to Section 304 Part-II of IPC, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

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

¶35

(9) 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

¶36

6

¶37

CRA No.1008 of 2017

¶38

the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/14-A) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr.Jagrani (PW-15). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/14-A) and the statement of Dr. Jagrani (PW-15), we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding 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. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding.

¶39

(10) Now the next question would be whether the accusedappellant herein is the author of the crime in question ?

¶40

(11) In the instant case, considering the statement of eye witnesses i.e. Sumitra Bai (PW-02), Sitabai (PW-03) i.e. daughter of deceased, Ramlal (PW-05) i.e. son-in-law of deceased(Tahar Ram) and Dashmi Bai (PW-06) i.e. wife of Suresh, that on date of incident i.e. 06-01-2014, a quarreled arose between the appellant/accused and deceased-Tahar Ram regarding the distribution of paddy, on account of which, the accused-Manijar Ram assaulted his father-deceased(Tahar Ram) twice by axe (tangi) , due to which, the deceased lying down and blood was oozing out from left side of his neck. Then, they informed the incident to Kunwar Sai (PW-1). Thereafter, the deceased was

¶41

7

¶42

CRA No.1008 of 2017

¶43

taken to hospital, Shankargarh, where he died. Moreover, weapon i.e. axe ( tangi ), has been seized and sent for chemical examination to FSL, we hereby accept the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellant-accused who assaulted Tahar Ram (deceased) by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant has caused the injuries upon the deceased is based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question.

¶44

(12) The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, which is, whether the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC or his case is covered with Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, thus, his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part II of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ?

¶45

(13) It is apparent from the FIR and merg inquiry that at the time when the incident took place, the appellant-accused had assaulted his father Tahar Ram (deceased) by means of axe (tangi) , due to which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and he died.

¶46

(14) The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v.

¶47

8

¶48

CRA No.1008 of 2017

¶49

State of Haryana 1 has observed as under:-

¶50

“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.”

¶51

(15) The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v.

¶52

State of Haryana 2 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 :-

¶53

“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 :

¶54

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

¶55

(b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;

¶56

(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;

¶57

(d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;

¶58

(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;

¶59

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

9

CRA No.1008 of 2017

(f) The age and general health condition of the accused;

¶64

(g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight;

¶65

(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted;

¶66

(I) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;

¶67

(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock;

¶68

(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;

¶69

(l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;

¶70

(m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident.

¶71

Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment ?

¶72

These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused.

¶73

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.”

¶74

(16) Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda 3, their

¶75

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

3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

10

CRA No.1008 of 2017

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.

¶80

(17) Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh 4 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-

¶81

“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)

¶82

“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.”

¶83

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)

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

11

CRA No.1008 of 2017

“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”.

¶88

(18) 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.

¶89

(19) Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir vs. State (NCT of Delhi)⁵ 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:

5 (2019) 6 SCC 122

12

CRA No.1008 of 2017

“ 16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required:

¶94

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

¶95

(ii) There was no premeditation;

¶96

(iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or

¶97

acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

¶98

(20) Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause the death of his father-Tahar Ram(deceased), but it appears from the statements of eye witnesses i.e. Sumitra Bai (PW-02), Sitabai (PW-03) i.e. daughter of deceased, Ramlal (PW-05) i.e. son-in-law of deceased(Tahar Ram) and Dashmi Bai (PW-06) i.e. wife of Suresh that on the date of incident i.e. 06-01-2014, when the appellant/accused demanded his share of paddy/agricultural land from his fatherTahar Ram(deceased), then the deceased refused him and did not say anything about the paddy/agricultural land, out of anger and in heat of passion, the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased by axe (tangi) , due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died. Considering the nature of injuries which have occurred on the body of the deceased, as recorded by Dr.Jagrani (PW-15), it is quite vivid that the appellant must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him on the body of the deceased would likely to cause his death, as such, this is a case which would fall within

¶99

13

¶100

CRA No.1008 of 2017

¶101

the purview of Exception 4 of 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 PartII of IPC.

¶102

(21) 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 his father-Tahar Ram(deceased), but the injuries caused by him were not 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 sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years, which he has already undergone as the appellant is reported to be in jail since 08.01.2014 i.e. more than 10 years. Accordingly, the appellant be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case, but, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact.

¶103

14

¶104

CRA No.1008 of 2017

¶105

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

¶106

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

¶107

SD/SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶108

Amardeep

Manijar Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manijar Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Sindram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Balesh Kumar Kuraiti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vishnu Rathiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Somar Sai Pando Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arkhito and Another Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Vs State Of Chhattisgarh