Appeal against conviction under Section 302/34 IPC for assaulting a deceased with fists and bamboo stick during a dispute over harvesting. Court acquitted A-3 for absence of overt act and altered A-1 and A-2's conviction to Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC, sentencing them to the period already undergone.
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. 1338 of 2017
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
Arising out of judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.110/2015 by the Additional Judge of Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellants :- Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate/Panel Lawyer, appointed by Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee. For Respondent-State :- Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer.
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board
(26.07.2024)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
2
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
Narayan (A-2) and Smt. Kunti Bai (A-3) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Additional Judge of Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.110/2015 whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of ₹ 5,000/-; in default of payment of fine, appellants have to undergo additional imprisonment for 3 months.
3
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
intimation and FIR were registered vide Exs.P/20 & P/2, respectively. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/16. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/5) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/18) proved by Dr. G.S. Jatra (PW-12), cause of death was shock due to haemo-pneumothorax due to multiple lacerated wounds on left lungs. Pursuant to memorandum statements of A-1 (Ex.P/6) & A-2 (Ex.P/7) bamboo sticks were seized vide Exs.P/8 & P/9, respectively. Other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and in the FSL report (Ex.P/29) on the neck towel of the deceased (Article A) blood was found.
4
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication.
5
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
Thus, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part.
6
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding of the trial Court holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.
7
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
the appellants (A-1 & A-2) assaulting Ramu Yadav (deceased). They have been subjected to some extent of cross examination, except minor omission nothing has been extracted to hold that they have falsely implicated the appellants (A-1 & A-2) in crime in question. Also considering the fact that pursuant to memorandum statements of appellants (A-1 & A-2) (Ex.P/6 & P/7, respectively) weapon of offence i.e. bamboo sticks were seized vide Exs.P/8 & P/9, the trial court has rightly held that it is the appellants who assaulted the deceased by hand-fist and bamboo sticks by which he suffered grievous injuries and died accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding of the trial Court.
“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)
“7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (I) it was a sudden fight; (ii)
1 (2017) 3 SCC 247
8
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
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.”
“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.
9
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
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”.
“16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required:
(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 offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
2 (2019) 6 SCC 122
10
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
11
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
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 302/34 of the IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II/34 of the IPC.
12
CRA No. 1338 of 2017
20. 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 the appellants are lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.
Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge
Ankit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC on the ground of sudden fight without premeditation.
Whether A-3 Kunti Bai, who allegedly made no overt act, could be convicted for the offence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arjun v. State of ChhattisgarhRelied on¶14
(2017) 3 SCC 247 · Who else cites this
Rambir vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶16
(2019) 6 SCC 122 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramnath
Laxmi Narayan
Smt. Kunti Bai
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
