Partly allowed

Jaylal Prajapati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Apr 2024CRA/2280/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appellant''s appeal against conviction for murder. It held that the sudden fight lacked premeditation and was not cruel, converting the offense under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

Jaylal Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 2280 of 2023

¶4

Jaylal Prajapati, S/o Chhotelal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Farhad, P.S. Baikunthpur District Rewa (M.P.) Present Address Village Jhamjhor, P.S. Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Appellant (In Jail)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O P.S. Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. : For Respondent/State Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Additional Advocate General.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

04.04.2024

¶16

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.09.2023, passed by the learned Session Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 37 of 2022, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under

¶17

¶18

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year.

¶19

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely, Suman Prajapati (PW-1), wife of the deceased, namely, Harilal Prajapati lodged the complaint (Ex.P/1) on 26.01.2022 at Police Station Kharsiya stating that the appellant and deceased had together made bricks, the amount of which was being disputed. On 21.01.2022 at around 11.00 a.m., the purchaser came to purchase the bricks, but at the same time the deceased refused to sell the bricks, therefore, the dispute was arose between the appellant and the deceased regarding brick selling. The appellant abused the deceased in filthy language and threatened to kill him by beating on the vital part i.e. head with stick (bamboo stick). When the complainant went to save her husband, co-accused, namely, Maya Prajapati also started abusing her. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away from the spot. Further, the injured was taken to the Hospital and during the treatment the deceased has died. On the basis of the complainant’s report, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered under the Crime No. 39/2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323 and 34 of the IPC. During investigation appellant was arrested and after completion of investigation Police of Police Station, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) filed the charge-sheet against the accused/appellant. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Medical College, Raipur, Distric Raipur (C.G.), where Dr. A.K. Jaiswani (PW-14) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P/15 and found following injuries:-

¶20

Injuries :

¶21

The body of the deceased was lying in supine state,

¶22

¶23

hands and feet were cold, rigor mortis was present, the pupils of both the eyes were dilated, surgical intervention seen as C-shaped craniotomy stitched wound of length 27 cm extending over left fronto-parieto-temporal region. On removing stitches, margins are clean cut, inflamed and cranial flap of size 11 cm x 9 cm present in-situ. Evidence of lax duroplasty present.

¶24

Therapeutic intervention seen as tracheostomy wound present over anterior aspect of neck.

¶25

Abrasion of size 2 cm diameter present over anterolateral aspect of lower 1/3^rd of left leg, black scab.

¶26

Dr. A.K. Jaiswani (PW-14) opined that cause of death Pneumonia consequent due to head injury. Inquest report was prepared vide Ex.P/5. Appellant-Jaylal Prajapati was arrested on 03.03.2022 vide arrest memo Ex.P/10.

¶27

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet against the appellant before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial from where the learned Session Judge, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

¶28

4. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506-B and 302 of the IPC and proceeded on trial. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

¶29

¶30

5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The appellant-accused examined none in their defence.

¶31

6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 22.09.2023, convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed.

¶32

7. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that if the case of the prosecution is accepted on the face of it, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to deceased on the spur of the moment, as they were fighting with each other; though no injury was caused to the appellant herein. There was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the 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 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC. Further, as appellant is in jail since 03.03.2022 and he has completed near about 02 years 01 month and 1 day, and therefore, considering the period he had already undergone, he be awarded the sentence of the

¶33

¶34

period already undergone by him.

¶35

8. On the other hand, Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that it is not a case where the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered/converted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC and as such, the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶37

10. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased-Harilal Prajapati was homicidal in nature ?

¶38

11. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr. A.K. Jaiswani (PW-14), who conducted postmortem, who in turn done surgical intervention for head injury, therapeutic injury, rest injuries and internal head injury are possible by hard and blunt force impact. The injuries were antemortem in nature. The Doctor ultimately opined through his report the nature of death to be homicidal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceasedHarilal Prajapati was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding.

¶39

12. Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question, which

¶40

¶41

the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by relying upon the testimony of Dr. A.K. Jaiswani (PW-14), who conducted postmortem, who in turn done surgical intervention for head injury, therapeutic injury, rest injuries and internal head injury are possible by hard and blunt force impact. The injuries were antemortem in nature. The Doctor ultimately opined through his report the nature of death to be homicidal and the testimony of Suman Prajapati (PW-1), who is the wife of the deceased and eyewitness of the incident, who clearly deposed in her statement that on the date of incident i.e. the accused/appellant abused the deceased in filthy language and further assaulting the deceased with stick (bamboo stick) on head of the deceased due to which the deceased had died. Thus, on the basis of testimonies of Dr. A.K. Jaiswani (PW-14) and Suman Prajapati (PW-1), it is clear that it is the appellant herein who on the fateful date and time has caused grievous injuries to the deceased, due to which he died. As such, the learned trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant/accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased and caused his death. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶42

13. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, whether the case of the appellant is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ?

¶43

14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana¹ has observed as under:-

¶44

“ 21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the

¶45

case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the

¶46

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

¶47

¶48

existence of common object Sukhbir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. ”

¶49

15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana² has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which state as under :-

¶50

“ 23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen fro its special perspective. The relevant

¶51

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

¶52

¶53

factors are as under :

¶54

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

¶55

(b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;

¶56

(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;

¶57

(d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;

¶58

(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;

¶59

(f) The age and general health condition of the accused;

¶60

(g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight;

¶61

(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted;

¶62

(i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;

¶63

(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock;

¶64

(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;

¶65

(l) Incident occurred within the family members or

¶66

¶67

close relations;

¶68

(m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the incident.

¶69

Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment ?

¶70

These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused.

¶71

24. The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused. ”

¶72

16. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda³ , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It has further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the 3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

¶73

¶74

accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death.

¶75

17. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh⁴ has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-

¶76

“ 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)

¶77

“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.”

¶78

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶79

¶80

21. 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)

¶81

“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

¶82

¶83

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 ”.

¶84

18. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 PartI of the 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 of the IPC.

¶85

19. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)⁵ has laid down four ingredients which should be tested to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under:

¶86

“ 16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required:

¶87

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

¶88

(ii) There was no premeditation;

¶89

(iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and

¶90

(iv)The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. ”

¶91

20. In the present case, Suman Prajapati (PW-1), who is the wife of the deceased and eye-witness of the incident had lodged a complaint (Ex.P/1) to the Police Station Kharsiya and on the basis of that information FIR

¶92

5 (2019) 6 SCC 122

¶93

¶94

(Ex.P/2) has been lodged. She has stated in his evidence that the appellant-Jaylal Prajapati is her brother-in-law (Jeth). She further states that on 21.01.2022 at around 11.00 a.m., the deceased and the accused had jointly constructed bricks for which the deceased asked for money, then the accused abused the deceased and threatened to kill him. After that, when the deceased was setting up the kiln, the accused came and started abusing the deceased and hit the deceased on the head with a stick due to which deceased’s head got torn and the accused hit the deceased again on the back due to which the deceased started vomiting blood and became unconscious. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the spot. Further, the injured was taken to the Hospital and during the treatment the deceased has died.

¶95

21. In the present case, Kiran Prajapati (PW-2), who is the daughter of the deceased and child eyewitness of the incident, has stated in her evidence that her father has died. Her uncle (bade papa) had hit his father on the head and back with a stick due to which her father vomited blood. After that her mother took her father for treatment.

¶96

22. Dr. A.K. Jaiswani (PW-14), who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased, has stated in his statement that on 30.01.2022, deceasedHarilal Prajapati was brought by Constable Trilok Shankar Pradhan, No.1680 of Police Station Gol Bazar, Raipur. After the postmortem, he found the injuries as stated in para 2 of this appeal and he opined that the deceased died due to Pneumonia consequent due to head injury. In his cross-examination, he stated that even if a heavy object falls on the head, such injuries can occur and can be accidental in nature.

¶97

23. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-stated

¶98

¶99

judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that as per evidence of Suman Prajapati (PW-1), who is the wife of the deceased and eyewitness of the incident, it is evident that the deceased and the accused had jointly constructed bricks for which the deceased asked for money and there was some quarrel occurred between them, then the accused assaulted the deceased by hitting him with stick (bamboo stick). There was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of deceased-Harilal Prajapati. The appellant did not had any intention to cause death of deceased-Harilal Prajapati, but by causing such injuries, he must had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely to cause death of deceased, as such, his case 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.

¶100

24. Considering the above-stated facts, also considering the evidence of witnesses and taking into consideration that at present appellant- Jaylal Prajapati is aged about 33 years and he is in jail since 03.03.2022, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

¶101

25. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years.

¶102

26. The appellant is in jail and he shall served out the sentence as modified above.

¶103

¶104

27. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶105

28. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶106

Sd/- Sd/-

¶107

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶108

Brijmohan/Abhishek

Jaylal Prajapati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaylal Prajapati 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

Somadu Podiyami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bandhuram Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

G.Krishna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Samresh Sarkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash @ Sonti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mannu Lal Kaushik Vs the State of Chhattisgarh