Partly allowed

Ramchandra Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Sept 2024CRA/422/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeal challenging murder conviction, High Court upheld conviction causing death and conspiracy to conceal evidence but downgraded murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on sudden quarrel exception, modifying sentence accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and substituted with Section 304 Part-II IPC for 10 years rigorous imprisonment; conviction under Section 201 IPC affirmed.

Ramchandra Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

1 / 12

¶2

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶3

2024:CGHC:34801-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2019

¶7

(Arising out of Judgment dated 19.2.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Sessions Case No.70/2017)

¶8

Ramchandra Gond, S/o Late Jageshwar Gond, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Sarnapara Parri, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, through: S.H.O., Arakshi Kendra Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant	:-	Mr. Gyan Prakash
		Shukla, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	:-	Mr. Rahul Tamaskar,
		Panel Lawyer.

¶14

[Division Bench]

¶15

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

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

(06.09.2024)

¶18

2 / 12

¶19

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶20

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶21

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 19.2.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Sessions Case No.70/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

¶22

Conviction		Sentence
1.Under Section302of	Life Im	prisonment with
IPC.	fine of default amount addition	Rs.100/- and in of payment of fine , to undergo al R.I. for 07 days.
2.Under Section201of IPC.	R.I. for fine of default amount addition	Three years with Rs.100/- and in of payment of fine , to undergo al R.I. for 07 days.

¶23

With a direction to run both the substantive sentences concurrently.

¶24

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that during the intervening period from 10:30 p.m. on 12.8.2017 to 9:00 a.m. on 13.8.2017, the appellant caused death of his wife, Smt. Babita, with bamboo stick by which she suffered grievous injuries and died and further in order to screen himself from legal punishment, he caused disappearance of evidence of her murder by throwing

¶25

3 / 12

¶26

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶27

her dead-body in the Semar pond. PW-1 Subran Singh lodged Merg Intimation (Ex. P-7) at Police Station Surajpur, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P-20) was registered. Spot-map (Exs. P-8 & P-9) was prepared by the police and the concerned Patwari also prepared the spot-map (Ex.10). Inquest proceeding (Ex. P-2) was conducted and the dead-body of deceased Babita was subjected to post-mortem examination which was conducted by PW-9 Dr. Seema Gupta who in postmortem report (Ex. P-15) opined the cause of her death to be polytrauma on account of sever blood loss due to assault and her death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement (Ex. P-5) of the appellant, a bamboo stick was seized vide recovery memo (Ex. P-6).

¶28

4. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the concerned Magistrate Court and after committal, the matter was received by the Trial Court for trial and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial.

¶29

4 / 12

¶30

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶31

5. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. Statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence however neither any witness has been examined nor any document has been relied upon by the appellant.

¶32

6. After conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Court, finally by impugned judgment dated 19.2.2019, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him in the manner as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, which has been assailed by the appellant in the instant appeal.

¶33

7. Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that considering the prosecution case as it is and also taking into account the injuries found on the person of the deceased, at the

¶34

5 / 12

¶35

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶36

most, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC can be altered to one under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and as the appellant is in jail since 15.8.2017, i.e., for a period of more than 07 years, his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶37

8. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State Counsel would however submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences in question taking into consideration the evidence available in record and as such it is not a case where the conviction of the appellant can be altered to a lesser offence and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

9. We have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

¶39

10. The first and foremost question, as to whether the death of deceased Babita was homicidal in nature, has been answered by learned Trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of PW-9 Dr. Seema Gupta who has conducted the post-mortem examination of

¶40

6 / 12

¶41

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶42

deceased Babita and proved the post-mortem report (Ex. P-15) opining that the cause of death of deceased Babita was polytrauma on account of sever blood loss due to assault and her death was homicidal in nature, which, in our considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on medical evidence on record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding of learned Trial Court, holding that the death of deceased Babita was homicidal in nature.

¶43

11. As regards the next question as to whether the appellant has caused death of deceased Babita, considering the statement of PW-7 Hiru, PW-8 Babla and PW-11 Bahoran Singh Markam, it is quite established that the appellant and his wife, deceased Babita, were last seen together in the night on the date of offence and thereafter the dead-body of the deceased was found in the Semar pond in naked position with multiple injuries on her body. The defence has not been able to bring anything on record to rebut the statement of PW-7 Hiru, PW-8 Babla and PW-11 Bahoran Singh Markam that the appellant and the deceased were not seen together in the night and thereafter on the next

¶44

7 / 12

¶45

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶46

morning her dead-body was found in the pond and further the appellant has also not been able to explain as to how his wife died. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by learned Trial Court holding the appellant guilty of causing death of his wife is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding of learned Trial Court also, holding that the appellant has caused death of his wife, deceased Babita.

¶47

12. Now, the question for our consideration would be, whether the case of the appellant would fall under PartII of Section 304 of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant?

¶48

13. In order to consider whether the case of the appellant would fall under Part-II of Section 304 of IPC, it would be appropriate to notice herein the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh 1 in which their Lordships have elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which read as under:-

¶49

1 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶50

8 / 12

¶51

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶52

“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)

¶53

“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.”

¶54

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)

¶55

9 / 12

¶56

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶57

“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 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”.

¶58

10 / 12

¶59

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶60

14. 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 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.

¶61

15. Further, the Supreme Court also in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2 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:-

¶62

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

¶63

(i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation;

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

15. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-mentioned decisions, it is quite apparent from the statement of PW-9 Dr. Seema Gupta, who has

¶67

2 (2019) 6 SCC 122

¶68

11 / 12

¶69

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶70

conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Babita and has also proved the post-mortem report (Ex. P-15), that there was fracture on 9^th , 10^th & 11^th ribs of her right and also fracture on 4^th , 5^th , 6^th , 7^th , 8^th , 11^th & 12^th ribs of her left side including multiple contusions on the ribs and congestion of lungs and her spleen was also ruptured and the cause of her death was opined to be polytrauma on account of sever blood loss due to assault and the injuries were homicidal in nature. Though from the evidence available on record it is also quite apparent that there was no premeditation and intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of his wife, deceased Babita, but he must have had knowledge that the injuries caused by him to deceased Babita is likely to result in her death. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and as such his conviction under Section 302 of IPC can be altered to one under Section Part-II of Section 304 of IPC, though his conviction under Section 201 of IPC does not deserve our interference being just and proper.

¶71

12 / 12

¶72

(Cr.A. No. 422 of 2019)

¶73

16. Consequent thereupon, we set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder as well. Instead, we convict him for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and sentence him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (Ten) years, maintaining the fine amount and its default sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. However, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder including the fine amount and its default clause stand hereby affirmed.

¶74

17. As a result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶75

18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the Trial Court and the concerned Superintendent of Jail be also supplied with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action, if any.

¶76

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

¶77

Digitally signed SHARAD by SHARAD KUMAR KUMAR YADAVDate: YADAV 2024.09.0911:00:10 +0530

Ramchandra Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra Gond 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

Lal Sai @ Konda Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Agrawal Vs Union of India

Kaushal Prasad Rathia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Singh Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laxminarayan @ Narayan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh