Partly allowed

Radhelal Jurri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Nov 2024CRA/1283/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench allowed criminal appeal against murder conviction. Court held death arose from sudden fight without premeditation, altering conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC IPC and sentencing appellant to seven years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining sentence for Section 323 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC. Sentence modified to seven years rigorous imprisonment for Section 304 Part-II IPC. Conviction and sentence for Section 323 IPC rem

Radhelal Jurri Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:45208-DB

ASHOK SAHU

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2024.11.21 14:24:13 +0530

¶7

CRA No. 1283 of 2019

¶8

{Arising out of judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.02/2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker}

¶9

Radhelal Jurri, S/o. Late Pratap Jurri, Aged About 33 Years, R/o. Village - Manjhipara, Kirgoli, Police Station - Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

For Appellant : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer

¶15

(Division Bench)

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

(20.11.2024)

¶19

¶20

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶21

1 . This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Bastar Kanker, in Sessions Trial No.02/2019, by which, the sole appellant herein has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 & 323 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

¶22

CONVICTION	SENTE	NCE
U/s. 302 of I.P.C.	: Life imprison fine of Rs default of pay 3 months rigorous impri	ment and .100/-, in ment of fine, additional sonment
U/s. 323 of I.P.C.	: Rigorous im for 6 months Rs.100/-, in payment of fin additional imprisonment.	prisonment and fine of default of e, 3 months rigorous

¶23

2 . Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.03.2018 at 11:00 P.M., at village Kirgoli, Manjhipara, Police StationKanker, the appellant herein assaulted his father Pratap Jurri (now deceased) by wooden stick, by which, he suffered grievous injuries and died and also assaulted his

¶24

¶25

mother Smt. Peela Bai (PW-2), by which, she suffered simple injuries. Keshav Ram Mandavi (PW-1) reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body of deceased Pratap Jurri was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. V.S.Kumethi (PW-7), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-16, in which, cause of death was stated to be head injury with rupture of liver and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-13), wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P-14, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along-with other seized articles and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-28), no blood was found on the seized weapon of offence i.e. wooden stick. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

¶26

3 . In order to bring home the offences, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents and

¶27

¶28

the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶29

4 . The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 302 & 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶30

5 . Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that it is a case where the appellant (son) has assaulted his father (deceased), as his father scolded him for not working and roaming here and there and therefore, at the most, the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. is made out against the appellant, as there was no premeditation & intention on the part of the appellant, but he had knowledge that the injury caused by him is likely to cause death. As such, the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and he be sentenced for the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 20.10.2018.

¶31

6 . Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable

¶32

¶33

doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He further submits that it is not a case where the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

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

¶35

8 . The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Pratap Jurri was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-16) proved by Dr. V.S.Kumethi (PW-7), according to which, cause of death was stated to be head injury with rupture of liver and death was homicidal in nature, which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶36

9 . Now, the next question is, whether the appellant has caused the death of his father Pratap Jurri ?

¶37

10. Considering the statement of the injured eye-witness Smt. Peela Bai (PW-2), mother of appellant & wife of deceased

¶38

¶39

and further considering the fact that pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, bamboo stick was seized, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial court that it is the appellant who had caused the death of deceased is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we affirm the said finding.

¶40

11. Now, the question would be whether the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C. and, as such, his conviction under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ?

¶41

12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of

¶42

Chhattisgarh 1 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-

¶43

“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)

¶44

“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 is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The

¶45

1 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶46

¶47

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

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)

¶49

“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

¶50

¶51

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”.

¶52

13. 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 of I.P.C. 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 of I.P.C.

¶53

14. 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, but considering the statement of injured eye-witness Smt. Peela Bai (PW-2), mother of appellant & wife of deceased, who clearly stated that on the date of offence, her son (appellant) came to home in the late night at 11:00 p.m. then her husband (deceased) scolded him for not doing any job and roaming here and there, on account of which, appellant became angry and assaulted his father by wooden stick, by which, he suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, though there was no premeditation and intention on the part of the appellant to

¶54

¶55

cause death, but the appellant must have had knowledge that the injuries caused by him is likely to cause death and, as such, the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C.

¶56

15. In view of the above, the conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and the appellant is sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment. However, the conviction and sentence of appellant for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. shall remain as it is, which he has already suffered.

¶57

16. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶58

17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence.

¶59

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶60

Ashok

Radhelal Jurri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhelal Jurri 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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Himanshu Goyal, Nawagaon Road

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Abhishek Steel Industries Ltd.

Kaushik Koshley Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Babulal @ Nagendra Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Riddhi Agro Industries Vs Union of India

Pradeep Xalxo Vs State of Chhattisgarh