Appellant convicted for murder for a single-blow killing with a burnt stick; High Court found no premeditation and applied Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, converting conviction to culpable homicide Section 304 Part-II with eight years rigorous imprisonment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
2024:CGHC:45845-DB
Digitally ANKIT signed byANKITKUMAR KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date:2024.11.25 14:24:32 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
(Arising out of judgment dated 21.06.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.74/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.)
... Appellant
versus
... Respondent
For Appellant :- Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate. For Respondent-State :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer.
Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment On Board (22.11.2024)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
2
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 74/2017 whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
burnt wood/burnt stick was seized vide Ex.P/9. Other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL, but FSL report has not been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. As per query report (Ex.P/14), proved by Dr. Shrey Chandrakar (PW-4) the injuries were caused over the body of the deceased could be caused by the weapon of offence i.e. burnt wood/burnt stick.
4
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
5
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
convicted the appellant for the offence in question. He also submits that the incident was witnessed by four members who were also present at the spot along with the appellant and the deceased and they have clearly implicated the appellant in crime in question, therefore, it is not the case of alteration of offence from under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC where the conviction of the appellant can be modified for lesser offence and, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
7
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
State Represented by the Inspector of Police1 whether
the case of accused can be converted to Section 304 Part-1 or Part-II of I.P.C. in case of death by single injury, and it has been held at para 7.2 & 11 as under :
“7.2. From the above stated decisions, it emerges that there is no hard and fast rule that in a case of single injury Section 302 IPC would not be attracted. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The nature of injury, the part of the body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the death occurs on account of a single blow, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. The fact situation has to be considered in each case, more particularly, under the circumstances
1 (2020) 9 SCC 524
8
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
narrated hereinabove, the events which precede will also have a bearing on the issue whether the act by which the death was caused was done with an intention of causing death or knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death. It is the totality of the circumstances which will decide the nature of offence.
9
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
which was lying there, though the single injury inflicted on the vital part of the body by which he (deceased) died. Considering the nature of injury which has occurred on the body of the deceased and further considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/12) proved by Dr. Shrey Chandrakar (PW-4), only single injury has occurred over the body of the deceased, it is apparent that appellant must have had knowledge that such injury 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 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 the IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
10
CRA No. 1087 of 2019
Considering that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of Lalkumar Hupundi (deceased) and the single injury caused by the appellant was not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased, the appellant is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge
Ankit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether death was homicidal and caused by appellant's single blow with burnt stick.
Whether conviction under Section 302 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part-II under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Stalin v. State Represented by the Inspector of PoliceRelied on¶13
(2020) 9 SCC 524 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Chaitram Taram
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Radhakishan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
