Partly allowed

Budhram Minj v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2024CRA/1197/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction for murdering wife after a dispute over harvested crops; appellate court found no premeditation but knowledge, invoked Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, altered conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC with sentence already undergone, while maintaining conviction under Section 201 IPC.

What the court decided

AI extract

Budhram Minj Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

(Cr.A. No. 1197 of 2017)

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1197 OF 2017

¶6

{Arising out of Judgment & Order dated 19.7.2017 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.4/2017}

¶7

Budhram Minj, S/o Lohra Minj, aged about 50 years, R/o Sonkadand, P.S. Duldula, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant(s) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through: District Magistrate, ... Respondent(s)

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, through: District Magistrate, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶10

__________________________ For Appellant	________ :-	________________________ Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	:-	Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Division Bench

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶13

Judgment on Board (04.03.2024)

¶14

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶15

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment & order dated 19.7.2017 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri, District Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.4/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

¶16

-2-

¶17

(Cr.A. No. 1197 of 2017)

¶18

Conviction		Sentence
1.Under Section 302 of IPC	Life Imp of Rs.100 payment undergo One mon	risonment with fine /- and in default of of fine amount, to additional R.I. for th.
2.Under Section 201 of IPC	R.I. for T of Rs.100 payment	hree years with fine /- and in default of of fine amount, to
	undergo One mon	additional R.I. for th.

¶19

With a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 11.11.2016 during the period between 5:30pm to 6:00pm inside the house of Uttam Minj at Village Sonkadand under Police Station Duldula, District Jashpur, the appellant assaulted his wife Rejina Minj with hands & fists/bamboo stick/ pickaxe by which she suffered grievous injuries and died and the appellant further in order to screen himself from legal punishment, shown the death of Regina Minj to be suicide by hanging with an intention to conceal the evidence.

¶21

The matter was reported to the police by PW-1 Uttam Minj, son of the deceased Regina Minj, on the basis of which Merg Intimation was recorded vide Exhibit P-1 and the FIR was registered against the appellant vide Exhibit P-2. Sketch Map of the place of occurrence was prepared vide Exhibit P-4 and the Nazri Naksha was prepared by the Patwari vide Exhibit P-8. Inquest Panchnama was prepared vide Exhibit P-9 and the dead-body of deceased Regina Minj was

¶22

-3-

¶23

(Cr.A. No. 1197 of 2017)

¶24

subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. Vipin Kumar Indwar (PW-7) vide Exhibit P-14 in which cause of death of deceased Regina Minj was opined to be shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury on her brain and the death was homicidal in nature. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Exhibit P-10 pursuant to which, bamboo stick and pickaxe were recovered vide Exhibit P-11 and vide Exhibit P-12, clothes of the Appellant were also seized. Query report received in respect of the seized bamboo stick and pickaxe is Exhibit P-15. In the FSL report received vide Exhibit P-28, blood was found on the half-pant (‘E’), bamboo stick (‘G’) and pickaxe (‘H’) seized from the appellant. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161/164 of CrPC and the appellant was arrested.

¶25

After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC before the concerned Magistrate Court and after committal, the matter was received by the Trial Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial.

¶26

During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. Statement of the accused

¶27

-4-

¶28

(Cr.A. No. 1197 of 2017)

¶29

appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, though no witness has been examined but the statement of Uttam Minj has been relied upon as Exhibit D-1.

¶30

After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court, finally by impugned judgment & order dated 19.7.2017, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC and sentenced him in the manner as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, which has been assailed by the appellant in the instant appeal.

¶31

Ms. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that looking to the contents of the Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-1) and the FIR (Exhibit P-2) lodged by PW-1 Uttam Minj, son of the deceased, only on account of a petty issue of demanding the harvested crops by the deceased, a dispute had arose between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant is said to have assaulted her which resulted in her death and as such the case of the appellant, at best, would fall under Part-II of Section 304 of IPC and since the appellant is in jail from 13.11.2016 i.e., for a period of more than 7 years, his

¶32

-5-

¶33

(Cr.A. No. 1197 of 2017)

¶34

sentence is liable to be reduced to the period already undergone and the appeal deserves to be allowed to that extent.

¶35

Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State Counsel, per contra, would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC, as such, it is not a case where the conviction of the appellant can be altered to a lesser offence. The appeal is liable to be dismissed accordingly.

¶36

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

¶37

The first question as to whether the death of deceased Regina Minj was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the Trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of Dr. Vipin Kumar Indwar (PW-7) who has conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-14) in which cause of death of the deceased Regina Minj has been opined to be shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury on her brain and the nature of death has been stated to be homicidal, which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor

¶38

-6-

¶39

(Cr.A. No. 1197 of 2017)

¶40

contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding of the Trial Court holding that the death of deceased Regina Minj was homicidal in nature.

¶41

As regards the next question as to whether the appellant has caused death of her wife Regina Minj, the Trial Court has relied upon the statement of PW-2 Filomina, mother of the appellant and mother-in-law of PW-1 Uttam Minj and further on the FIR (Exhibit P-2) and Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-1) lodged by PW-1 Uttam Minj. The said witnesses have clearly stated that since the appellant did not bring the harvested crop from the field, a dispute occurred between the appellant and the deceased Regina Minj on the said issue and the appellant assaulted her by hands & fists as well as bamboo stick and pickaxe, which were seized pursuant to his memorandum statement and in the FSL report blood was found on the seized bamboo stick and pickaxe. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the appellant has caused death of his wife Regina Minj, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding of the Trial Court holding that the appellant has caused death of his wife Regina Minj.

¶42

Now, the question would be, whether the case of the appellant would fall under Part-II of Section 304 of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant?

¶43

-7-

¶44

(Cr.A. No. 1197 of 2017)

¶45

In order to consider whether the case of the appellant would fall under Part-II of Section 304 of IPC, it would be appropriate to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh 1 in which their Lordships have elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-

¶46

“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)

¶47

“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.”

¶48

1 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶49

-8-

¶50

(Cr.A. No. 1197 of 2017)

¶51

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)

¶52

“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”.

¶53

-9-

¶54

(Cr.A. No. 1197 of 2017)

¶55

In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that when and if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 Part-I 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.

¶56

Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of his wife Regina Minj, but as apparent from the FIR (Exhibit P-2) and Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-1), promptly lodged and proved by PW-1 Uttam Minj, that for the reason that the appellant had not brought the harvested crop from the field, a dispute had arisen between the appellant and his wife Regina Minj on the said issue and, after a brief altercation, the appellant is said to have assaulted her resulting in her death. Thus, it is quite established that though the appellant had no intention but he must have had knowledge that the assault made by him to his wife Regina Minj is likely to cause her death. As such, the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and his conviction under Section 302 of IPC can be altered to Part-II of Section 304 of IPC, maintaining his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC as it is.

¶57

-10-

¶58

(Cr.A. No. 1197 of 2017)

¶59

Accordingly, we set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder as well. Instead, we convict him for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and sentence him to the period already undergone as he is in jail since 13.11.2016, i.e. for a period of more than 7 years, maintaining the fine amount with its default sentence. However, his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder including the fine amount with its default clause shall stand maintained as it is. The appellant be released from jail forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other offence.

¶60

Resultantly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶61

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the Trial Court and a certified copy of the same be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is suffering his jail sentence, for information and necessary action, if any, at the earliest.

¶62

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

¶63

sharad

Budhram Minj v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Budhram Minj v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaj Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gopi Kishan @ Gopi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anil Kumar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Fulchand Markam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amrit Jangade Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jawahir Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh