Partly allowed

Reman Singh Rathiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2024CRA/237/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against life imprisonment for murdering his father with a club during a petty cattle-grazing dispute. Holding there was no premeditation and the act occurred in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, the High Court altered the conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II IPC with ten years' rigorous imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II IPC; sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment; fine unchanged.

Reman Singh Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 15

2024:CGHC:36186-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.237 of 2019

¶6

Reman Singh Rathiya, S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Rathiya, Aged About 25 years, R/o Village Rampur Shankar Chowk, Patelpara, Police Station Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant	: Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Division Bench

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶14

Judgment on Board (17.09.2024)

¶15

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

¶16

1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the appellantaccused is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.52

¶17

2 / 15

¶18

of 2015, whereby appellant-accused has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 1 year.

¶19

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that, on 22.01.2013, in the evening about 7.00 P.M., at village Rampur within the ambit of Police Station Kartala, District Korba (C.G.), the appellantaccused has assaulted his father deceased Ramesh Kumar Rathiya by means of club, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries on his head and died after 2 days on 24.11.2013 while undergoing treatment, pursuant to which, Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/2) was recorded. On the basis of Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/2), merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P/6 and First Information Report was registered bide Ex.P/10 against the appellant-accused. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/3 and summons under Section 175 of Cr.P.C. was given vide Ex.P/7. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/12. The dead body of deceased Ramesh Kumar Rathiya was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem report (Ex.P/18), Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-7) opined that the cause of death seems to be coma due to compression of brain as a result of head injury and nature of death is homicidal. Thereafter, appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/19. Statement of Ghasnin Bai (PW-1) was recorded, pursuant to

¶20

3 / 15

¶21

which, seizure of blood stained club was affected vide Ex.P/14. The blood stained club was not subjected to FSL examination for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and after due investigation, the appellant-accused was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC in the concerned jurisdictional Criminal Court and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant-accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

¶22

3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 7 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents, whereas the appellantaccused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶23

4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant-accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶24

5. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the death of deceased Ramesh Kumar Rathiya is said

¶25

4 / 15

¶26

to be homicidal in nature, but there was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant-accused and only on account of sudden quarrel and under heat of passion on a petty dispute of grazing of cattle, the appellant-accused is said to have assaulted his father Ramesh Kumar Rathiya, pursuant to which, he sustained grievous injury over his head and succumbed to the said injury after 2 days of the incident and thereby committed the offence. Thus, the case of the present appellant-accused falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellantaccused is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellantaccused can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and, further, since the appellant-accused is in jail since 01.06.2015 i.e. more than 9 years and 3 months, 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.

¶27

6. Per contra , Mr. Soumya Rai, 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-accused for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC is not attracted in this case and it is not a case where

¶28

5 / 15

¶29

conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 of IPC requires to be converted/altered to Section 304 Part-II of IPC, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

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

¶31

8. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature ?

¶32

9. The learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly, considering postmortem report (Ex.P/18) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-7) and the statement of eyewitness, namely, Ghasnin Bai (PW-1) and Dhavan Singh (PW-2), who are wife and son of deceased and mother and brother of the appellant, respectively. Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/18) and the statements of eye-witnesses Ghasnin Bai (PW-1) and Dhavan Singh (PW-2), we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased Ramesh Kumar Rathiya 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.

¶33

6 / 15

¶34

10. Now, the next question would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the author of the crime in question ?

¶35

11. In the instant case, the incident took place on 22.01.2013, whereby appellant-accused has assaulted his father on his head by means of head while he was sleeping on a petty issue with respect to grazing of cattle, pursuant to which, he suffered grievous injuries on his head and died while undergoing treatment. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police and investigation was carried out and pursuant to which, a blood stained club is said to have been recovered, same was not sent to FSL examination for the reasons best known to the prosecution. But still, fact remains that it is the appellant-accused who on sudden quarrel and under heat of passion on a petty dispute, assaulted his father by means of club, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries on his head, which is duly proved by the postmortem report (Ex.P/18) conducted by Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-7). Accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question.

¶36

12. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, which is, whether the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant-accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC or his case is covered with Exception 4 of

¶37

7 / 15

¶38

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 appellantaccused ?

¶39

13. It is apparent from the Dehatinalishi (Ex.P/2), merg intimation (Ex.P/6) and spot map (Ex.P/12) that at the time when incident took place appellant-accused and deceased Ramesh Kumar Rathiya were present in the house and deceased was sleeping, the appellant-accused seems to be in evasive mood and assaulting his father by means of club, due to which, he died while undergoing treatment. Postmortem report reveals that cause of death seems to be coma due to compression of brain as a result of head injury.

¶40

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

¶41

“21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the 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

¶42

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

¶43

8 / 15

¶44

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.”

¶45

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 IPC, which state as under :-

¶46

“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 factors are as under :

¶47

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

¶52

9 / 15

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

(l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

10 / 15

¶66

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.”

¶67

16. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda³ their Lordships

¶68

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

¶69

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 :-

¶70

“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)

¶71

3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

¶72

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶73

11 / 15

¶74

“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.”

¶75

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)

¶76

“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

¶77

12 / 15

¶78

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 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”.”

¶79

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 Part-I of 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 IPC.

¶80

13 / 15

¶81

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 for bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under :-

¶82

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

¶83

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

¶84

(ii) There was no premeditation;

¶85

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

¶86

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

¶87

20. Now coming to the facts of the present case in light of above principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, it is quite apparent that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant-accused to cause death of the deceased, but only on account of petty dispute i.e. grazing of cattle, the appellantaccused suddenly brought a club and assaulted his father, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries on his head and died while undergoing treatment. The said incident was witnessed by wife and son of the deceased, namely, Ghasnin Bai (PW-1) and Dhavan Singh (PW-2), who in their statements clearly stated that deceased Ramesh Kumar Rathiya was sleeping in his house at

¶88

5 (2019) 6 SCC 122

¶89

14 / 15

¶90

about 7 P.M., at that relevant time, appellant herein came and assaulted his father by means of club, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died while undergone treatment after 2 days of the incident. However, looking to the injuries sustained by deceased Ramesh Kumar Rathiya, as recorded by Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-7), which have been caused on his head, the appellantaccused must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him on the body of the deceased would likely to cause his 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 appellantaccused completely satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 of 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-accused under Section 302 of IPC can be altered/converted to the Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

¶91

21. Considering that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of his father Ramesh Kumar Rathiya, but the injuries caused by him are likely to cause death, appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and we award him sentence for a period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment by reducing it from imprisonment for life. The fine amount awarded by learned trial Court shall remain as it is.

¶92

15 / 15

¶93

22. This criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated

¶94

herein-above.

¶95

23. Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and needful action, if any.

¶96

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶97

Yogesh

¶98

YOGESH TIWARI

¶99

Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2024.09.18 17:24:53 +0530

Reman Singh Rathiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reman Singh Rathiya 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

Sagat Ram Manjhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hemkumar @ Hora Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maniram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shankar Lal Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indrajeet Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deo Lal Dhruva Vs State of Chhattisgarh