Partly allowed

Hari Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2024CRA/1012/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh addressed the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife. The court analyzed whether the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. After examining factors like suddenness, absence of premeditation, and heat of passion, the court altered the conviction and

What did the court decide?

Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years; original life sentence set aside.

Hari Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

NAFR

Page 1 of 14

(CRA-1012-2018)

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 201 8

¶6

(Arising out of judgment dated 08.05.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 154/2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur)

¶7

Hari Patel S/o Lambodar Patel aged 34 years, R/o Bomopuda, District – Kantabhanji, Odisha, at present residing in :- Dewar Basti, Kukurbeda, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Appellant (In Jail)

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee. For Respondent-State : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (11.07.2024)

¶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 08.05.2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 154/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted

¶16

Page 2 of 14

¶17

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶18

for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶19

(2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.04.2017 at about 00:30 O’clock, in village Kikurbeda, Dewar Basti, Police Station – Saraswati Nagar, District- Raipur, the appellant assaulted his wife Nirmala Patel (now deceased) by means of grinding stone (lhy iRFkj), by which she suffered grievous injuries and died, thereby, committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

¶20

(3) The further case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 24.04.2017 at about 01:30 O’clock, complainant Surya Dewar (PW-3) lodged a report in Saraswati Nagar Police Station Raipur stating therein that she lives in Kukarbeda Dewar Basti. Nirmala Patel is her step-aunt. Nirmala Patel had quarrelled with her husband Hari Patel for the last 3 days of the incident. The house of the appellant was in a dilapidated condition so the appellant and his wife used to sleep in her (complainant) house. On the date of the incident, Nirmala was sleeping in the downstairs room with her husband Hari and children. The complainant herself was sleeping on the roof of the house. At about 12.30 in the night, Nirmala's daughter Bhumika Patel

¶21

Page 3 of 14

¶22

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶23

came out of the house and started crying. Hearing this, the complainant came to her. At the same time, the accused Hari Patel who had climbed on the tree, jumped down from the tree. When the complainant asked the appellant, he said that he had killed his wife Nirmala Patel by assaulting her by means of grinding stone. When she went inside the house saw that Nirmala was lying on the ground and died. On the above information, FIR was registered vide Ex. P-5, Merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P/6. FIR was registered vide Ex.P/11 against the appellant-accused. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/8. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/16), Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-7) opined that the cause of death is Hemorrhagic shock as a result of head injury. Thereafter, appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/22, seizure of blood stained clothes of the deceased, mat etc. were made vide Ex. P/02, grinding stone was seized vide Ex.P/12 from the spot and clothes of the appellant was seized vide Ex.P/ 13 and sent for chemical examination to FSL. In FSL report (Ex.P/21) human blood was found on clothes of the accused, grinding stone and mat (Articles-A1 to A2, B and E5 respectively).

¶24

(4) During the course of trial, in order to bring home the

¶25

Page 4 of 14

¶26

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶27

offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, appellant-accused in support of his defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶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 questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶29

(6) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is not justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He submits that if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, at best the offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is made out against the appellant since the appellant was used to drink liquor, there was a dispute between the appellant and his wife (deceased) due to which, out of anger and on spur of moment the appellant is said to have assaulted his wife, Nirmala, by which she suffered

¶30

Page 5 of 14

¶31

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶32

grievous injuries and died, which is proved by Surya Dewar (PW-3), niece 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 can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and, further, since the appellant is in jail since 24.04.2017 i.e. more than 07 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 , 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

¶35

Page 6 of 14

¶36

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶37

the records with utmost circumspection.

¶38

(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 the oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/16) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-7). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/16) and the statement of Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-7), 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 is the author of the crime in question?

¶40

(11) In the instant case, considering the statement of Bhumika Patel (PW-2), the minor daughter of the deceased and appellant who has clearly seen the appellant assaulting to her mother and the weapon of offence i.e. grinding stone was recovered from the spot and in FSL report (Ex.P/21) human blood was found on the weapon of offence. Furthermore, Surya Dewar (PW-3) whose house the appellant and his wife were staying at on the date of

¶41

Page 7 of 14

¶42

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶43

the offence also supported the case of the prosecution. 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. 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 (Ex.P/5) and merg inquiry that at the time when the incident took place, there was a dispute as the appellant used to drink liquor, due to which out of anger and on the spur of moment the appellant-accused had assaulted his wife, Nirmala (deceased) by grinding stone, by which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died.

¶46

(14) The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1 has observed as under:-

¶47

“21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

Page 8 of 14

(CRA-1012-2018)

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.”

¶52

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

¶53

II of IPC, which state as under :-

¶54

“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 :

¶55

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

¶56

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

¶57

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

¶61

Page 9 of 14

¶62

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶63

(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

¶76

that it is likely to cause death is established but without any

¶77

3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

¶78

Page 10 of 14

¶79

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶80

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.

¶81

(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 :-

¶82

“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)

¶83

“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

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

Page 11 of 14

(CRA-1012-2018)

the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.”

¶88

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)

¶89

“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”.

¶90

(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

¶91

Page 12 of 14

¶92

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶93

knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II IPC.

¶94

(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:

¶95

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

¶96

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

¶97

(ii) There was no premeditation;

¶98

(iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and

¶99

(iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

¶100

(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 the deceased, but it appears from the statement of Surya Dewar (PW-3), niece of the deceased and appellant that as the appellant had not gone to his work and used to drink liquor, there was a dispute between the appellant and his wife (deceased), due to which, out of anger and on the spur of moment, the appellant caused injury to the deceased, by grinding stone, by which she suffered grievous injury and died. However, looking to the injuries sustained by

¶101

5 (2019) 6 SCC 122

¶102

Page 13 of 14

¶103

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶104

deceased, as recorded by Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-7), the appellant must have had the 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 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 Part-II of IPC.

¶105

(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 the deceased and 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 rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. However, the fine amount imposed by the learned

¶106

Page 14 of 14

¶107

(CRA-1012-2018)

¶108

trial Court shall remain intact.

¶109

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

¶110

(23) Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where he lodged and suffering jail

¶111

sentence, for information and necessary action, if any.

¶112

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

¶113

H.L. Sahu

Hari Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Patel 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanik Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhuneshwar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Ekka Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dev Kumar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushila Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Baban Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh