Partly allowed

Suraj Kottur @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Aug 2024CRA/1764/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in this criminal appeal, altered the conviction of the appellant from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, citing lack of premeditation and sudden fight. The court affirmed the conviction for voluntary causing hurt under Section 323 IPC and directed the appellant's release from jail after serving mo

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC; sentence for Section 323 IPC affirmed; appellant released after serving period indicated.

Suraj Kottur @ Munna Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 10

2024:CGHC:31627-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Appeal No. 1764 of 201 8

¶6

(Arising out of judgment dated 30.08.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 201/2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg)

¶7

Suraj Kottur @ Munna S/o Prabhakar Kottur aged about 45 years, R/o Village Ghugghush, Amrai Ward, P.s. Ghugghush, District Chandrapur (M.H.).

¶8

---- Appellant (In Jail)

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, through: S.H.O. Newai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee For Respondent-State : Mr. Amit Baxy, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (21.08.2024)

¶14

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶15

(1) This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2018,

¶16

Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2024.08.23 10:31:18 +0530

¶17

2 / 10

¶18

passed by the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 201/2017, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 & 323 of IPC and sentenced as under:-

¶19

CONVICTION	SENTENCE
U/s 323 of IPC	Rigorous Imprisonment for 1year.
U/s 302 of IPC	Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000/-,
	in default of payment of fine amount
	additional rigorous imprisonment for 1year.

¶20

(Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently).

¶21

(2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.06.2017 at 6:30 am, at VRP Colony Station Maroda, Police Station – Newai, District - Durg the appellant committed murder of his wife Sangita Kottur (now deceased) by voluntarily causing hurt by grabbing the throat and forcibly making drink something by which she died on 08.07.2017, thereby, committed the offences under Sections 302 & 323 of IPC.

¶22

(3) The further case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the complainant Subosh Nand (PW-1) submitted an application on 30.08.2017 in the police station Newai to the effect that on 24.06.2017 at 6.30 am, on receiving information that his sister Sangita Kottur (now deceased) was lying writhing on a cot kept in the courtyard of her house, on reaching her house, he saw that she had vomited. On asking at that time, her elder sister

¶23

3 / 10

¶24

told him that the husband of Sangita (deceased) had assaulted his wife and forcibly made her take something by holding her neck tightly. Sangita Kottur was taken to the District Hospital Durg for treatment and admitted. His sister, Sangita Kottur was in unconscious state. His brother-in-law accused Suraj Kottur assaulted his sister Sangita Kottur and forcibly made her drink some poisonous substance by holding her neck. On the above information, FIR No. 100/2017 was registered vide Ex. P-1. During the investigation the accused-appellant was apprehended and questioned, he admitted to having committed the crime in his memorandum statement (Ex.P-6) and after the memorandum, his house was searched to recover the poisonous substance, but nothing was found; the search panchnama (Ex.P7) was prepared in front of witnesses, thereafter the accused was arrested and produced before the Court. As the condition of the injured/deceased did not improve in B.M. Shah Hospital, Supela, she was taken to Maikahara Hospital, Raipur by her family on 08.07.2017 for treatment, where she died during treatment. The matter was reported by Purtej Thakur (PW-9), on the basis of which merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-11 Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-4. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P-20), Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-12) opined that the cause of death seems to be cardio-respiratory failure as a result of multiple injuries and their complications

¶25

4 / 10

¶26

and nature of death is homicidal.

¶27

(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded wherein he denied guilt. However, appellant-accused in support of his defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶28

(5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for offences under Sections 302 & 323 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶29

(6) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the date of incident was 24.06.2017 at about 06:30 am, and the deceased died on 08.07.2017 i.e. after 14 days of incident and Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-12) who conducted the postmortem of the deceased did not opine that the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. In that view of the matter, in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1 only offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is made out against the

¶30

1 (2016) 3 SCC 62

¶31

5 / 10

¶32

appellant. Thus, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and, further, since the appellant is in jail since 01.07.2017 i.e. more than 07 years, taking into consideration the period he has already undergone, the appellant-accused be released from jail forthwith. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed.

¶33

(7) Per-contra , learned State counsel, supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Exception 04 to Section 300 of IPC is not attracted in this case and it is not a case where conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC requires to be altered to Section 304 Part-II of IPC, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

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

¶35

(9) The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial

¶36

6 / 10

¶37

Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P-20) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-12). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P-20) and the statement of Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-12), we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding.

¶38

(10) Now the next question would be whether the accusedappellant herein is the author of the crime in question ?

¶39

(11) In the instant case, considering the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that the deceased and the appellant were lastly seen together by Kumari Sara (PW-3) and also considering the other evidence as considered by the Trial Court, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant has caused the injuries upon the deceased is based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question.

¶40

(12) The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, which is, whether the trial Court has rightly

¶41

7 / 10

¶42

convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC or his case is covered with Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, thus, his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part II of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries caused by the appellant were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased as the injuries were caused by the appellant to the deceased on 24.06.2017 and died on 08.07.2017 vide merg intimation Ex. P- 11. As such, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. In this regard, reliance has been placed in the matter of Sanjay (supra).

¶43

(13) The Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 has observed as under:-

¶44

However, in the instant case, it is apparent that the death occurred sixty-two days after the occurrence due to septicaemia and it was indirectly due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. The proximate cause of death on 13-10-1998 was septicaemia which of course was due to the injuries caused in the incident on 11-8-1998. As noted earlier, as per the evidence of Dr. Laxman Das (PW-9), Roop Singh was discharged from the hospital in good condition and he survived for sixty-two days. In such facts and circumstances, the prosecution should have elicited from Dr. Laxman Das 9PW 9) that the head injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No such opinion was elicited either from Dr. Laxman Das (PW 9)

¶45

2 (2016) 3 SCC 62

¶46

8 / 10

¶47

or from Dr. Gulecha (PW 3). Having regard to the fact that Roop Singh survived for sixty-two days and that his condition was stable when he was discharged from the hospital, the Court cannot draw an inference that the intended injury caused was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death so as to attract clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC.

¶48

In Ganga Dass v. State of Haryana³ , the accused gave iron pipe single blow on the head of the deceased and the deceased died eighteen days after the occurrence due to septicaemia and other complications, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC was altered by this Court to Section 304 Part II IPC. This Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 535-36, para 6)

¶49

“6. We find considerable force in this submission. As stated above the occurrence took place on 18-111988 and the deceased died 18 days later on 5-121988 due to septicaemia and other complications. The doctor found only one injury on the head and that was due to single blow inflicted with an iron pipe not with any sharp-edged weapon. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the appellant intended to cause death nor it can be said that he intended to cause that particular injury. In any event the medical evidence shows that the injured deceased was operated but unfortunately some complications set in and ultimately he died because of cardiac failure, etc. Under these circumstances, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder. Instead we convict him under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to undergo six years’ RI. The sentence of fine of Rs. 2000 along with default clause is confirmed. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.”

¶50

(14) Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court,

¶51

3 1994 Supp (1) SCC 534

¶52

9 / 10

¶53

it is quite vivid that the injuries were caused by appellant to the deceased on 24.06.2017 at about 6:30 am, whereas the deceased died on 08.07.2017 at about 9:30 pm, as per merg intimation vide Ex.P-11. As such, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. However, looking to the injuries sustained by deceased, as recorded by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-12), the appellant must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him on the body of the deceased would likely to cause her death, as such, this is a case which would fall within the purview of Exception 4 of 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 IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

¶54

(15) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Considering that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, but the injuries caused by him were sufficient in

¶55

10 / 10

¶56

the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC. However, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC as awarded by the learned trial Court, is hereby affirmed. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 01.07.2017 i.e. more than 07 years, taking into consideration the period he has already undergone, we award him sentence already undergone by him, however, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appellant be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶57

(16) 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 trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where he lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶59

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

¶60

H.L. Sahu

Suraj Kottur @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Kottur @ Munna 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

Akhil Jhariya & Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Umesh Janghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Kumar Suryavanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalinder @ Marchai Korwa Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yashwant Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Shrivas Vs State of Chhattisgarh