Husband convicted under Section 302 IPC for strangulating his wife after a quarrel. The High Court held there was no premeditation or intention to kill but knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, invoking Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
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
2024:CGHC:46766-DB
ASHOK SAHU
NAFR
Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2024.11.29 17:00:40 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1680 of 2019
{Arising out of judgment dated 08.11.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.89/2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kondagaon}
Jageshwar Manikpuri @ Jagesh, S/o. Shri Budhram Manikpuri, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Village Kongera, Thana Vishrampuri, Civil And Revenue District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mrs. Savita Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. R.S.Marhas, Additional A.G.
(Division Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
2
Judgment on Board (28.11.2024)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
3
Mamta Thakur (PW-9), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-16, in which, cause of death was stated to be asphyxia due to fracture of hyoid bone and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-6), one bamboo stick was seized vide Ex.P-7 and mobile was seized vide Ex.P-8. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence 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.
4
1 (2002) 7 SCC 79
5
10. Considering the finding recorded by the trial Court in para 20 to 22 of its judgment, it has been found proved that the appellant had caused the death of deceased, as the deceased had informed her parents about the quarrel taken place between the appellant & deceased (husband & wife) and, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial court that it is the appellant
6
who had caused the death of his wife is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we affirm the said finding.
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 ?
12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh 2 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-
“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) 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 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
2 (2017) 3 SCC 247
7
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. 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
8
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”.
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.
14. Furthermore, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Uday Singh (supra) held at para 6 as under :
“6. From the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, it is clear that fight between two parties started all of a sudden as a result of obstruction caused for digging of the foundation and there is no evidence to show that the accused attacked the deceased with deadly or dangerous arms [or weapons]. It was only in a fight, hand to fist, that both Gainda Singh and the appellant have held the neck of the deceased, Shishupal Singh with such force as to ultimately result in strangulation and his death. It is very difficult to conceive as to how much pressure was applied either by Gainda Singh or the appellant on the deceased's neck so as to cause death. It would be reasonable to hold
9
that the injuries were caused by the appellant on the deceased in a sudden fight where no arms [or weapons] were used and that fight took place in a heat of passion and no common intention to kill the deceased could be inferred. We cannot definitely conclude who actually inflicted fatal injury as evidence on record discloses that Gainda Singh and the appellant both strangled the deceased, which action is part of sudden unarmed fight nor can we conclude that the appellant had an intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, though we attribute to him knowledge that such act is likely to cause death. Thus the appellant and Gainda Singh are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.”
15. 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, as the trial Court in para 20 to 22 of its judgment has clearly recorded the finding that immediately prior to the incident, quarrel has taken place between the appellant and deceased to which the deceased had informed her parents, on account of which, the appellant became angry and strangulated the deceased, by which, she died. As such, though there was no premeditation and intention on the part of the appellant to cause death, but the appellant must have had knowledge that the injuries caused by him is likely to cause death
10
and, as such, the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C.
16. 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 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
17. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.
18. 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.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge
Ashok
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the death was homicidal and caused by the appellant?
Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC for absence of premeditation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Uday Singh v. State of U.P.Relied on¶14
(2002) 7 SCC 79 · Who else cites this
Arjun v. State of ChhattisgarhRelied on¶12
(2017) 3 SCC 247 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Jageshwar Manikpuri @ Jagesh
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
