Partly allowed¶20

Manaram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2024CRA/460/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court criminal appeal converting a Section 302 IPC murder conviction to Section 304 Part-II IPC under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC for an axe killing of a woman branded a 'Tonhi' at village Jhitki, Mahasamund; single fatal neck injury, no premeditation, knowledge-based culpability, 10 years rigorous imprisonment; key terms: Manaram, Sirantin Bai, Bhuri Bai PW-3, Babli Bai PW-10, Sessions Trial No.H-15/2016, Sukhbir Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Sanjeev Nanda, Arjun, Rambir.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal partly allowed: conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC with sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment; fine imposed by the trial Court retained; certified copy and original record to be sent to the trial Court and a copy to the Jail Superintendent. ¶20

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the death of deceased Sirantin Bai was homicidal in nature. +2 more

¶8

Court's answer

The death of deceased Sirantin Bai was homicidal in nature; the trial Court's finding based on the post-mortem report (Ex.P-6) proved by Dr. B.P.Singh (PW-8) is a correct finding of fact and is affirmed by this Court.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

It was the appellant who caused the death of the deceased; accepting the eye-witness statements of Bhuri Bai (PW-3) and Babli Bai (PW-10), the trial Court's finding to that effect is affirmed.

¶10

Key takeaways

Though there was no premeditation or intention on the part of the appellant to cause death, he must have had knowledge that the injuries caused by him were likely to cause death; he took no undue advantage and did not act in an unusual manner; injury No.2 was fatal and other injuries were on non-vital parts; therefore his case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.ratio¶18
The conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC and he is sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment; the fine amount imposed by the trial Court remains intact.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur — Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2018 (decided 22.07.2024; Division Bench of Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.). The appellant, convicted by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahasamund under Section 302 IPC for assaulting Sirantinbai with an axe on 12.12.2010 at village Jhitki after identifying her as a Tonhi, appealed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. seeking conversion to Section 304 Part-II IPC. The High Court affirmed (i) that the death was homicidal (post-mortem Ex.P-6, Dr. B.P.Singh PW-8) and (ii) that the appellant caused the death, relying on eye-witnesses Bhuri Bai (PW-3) and Babli Bai (PW-10). Applying the principles in Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327, Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635, State v. Sanjeev Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450, Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017) 3 SCC 247 and Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 6 SCC 122, the Court held there was no premeditation or intention to cause death but knowledge that the injuries were likely to cause death, with injury No.2 fatal and others on non-vital parts; the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Conviction altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC with 10 years rigorous imprisonment; trial Court fine of Rs.1000/- kept intact; appeal partly allowed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 460 of 2018

¶4

{Arising out of judgment dated 19.02.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.H-15/2016 by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mahasamund}

¶5

Manaram, S/o.Bhuvneshwar Sahu, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village Jhitki, Police Out Post Komakhan, Police Station Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Bagbahra (Ajak), District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---Respondent

¶10

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Panel Lawyer appointed by the C.G. High Court Legal Aid Committee.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer

¶13

(Division Bench)

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶15

Judgment On Board

¶16

(22.07.2024)

¶17

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶18

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled

¶19

¶20

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mahasamund, in Sessions Trial No.H-15/2016, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 6 month’s additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶21

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.12.2010 at about 12:30 p.m. at village Jhitki, Lamindongri Paretin Sorra Forest, the appellant herein assaulted Sirantinbai (now deceased) by axe by identifying her to be Tonhi, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. Shyamlal Diwan reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-14, FIR was registered vide Exs.P-8 & P-15, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-2 and dead body of deceased Sirantin Bai was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. B.P.Singh (PW-8), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-6, in which, cause of death was stated to be cardio respiratory arrest due to excessive heamorrhage and multiple chop injury on neck region and death was homicidal in nature. In Articles- A, B, C1 & C2, which are soil and clothes of deceased seized from the spot,

¶22

¶23

blood was found as per the FSL report (Ex.P-16). After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. 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.

¶24

3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents, but the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶25

4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶26

5. Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that, at the most, the case of appellant would fall under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C.,

¶27

¶28

as there was only one single injury on the neck and other injuries were non-vital part of the body of deceased. He submits that there was no premeditation and intention of appellant to cause death, but he had knowledge that the injury caused by him is likely to cause death of deceased and, as such, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and appellant be sentenced for the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 16.06.2016.

¶29

6. Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. He further submits that Bhuri Bai (PW-3) and Babli Bai (PW-10) both the eye-witnesses had seen the appellant causing death of deceased and, as such, it is not a case where the sentence of appellant can be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above

¶31

¶32

and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶33

8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Sirantin Bai was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-6) proved by Dr. B.P.Singh (PW-8), according to which, cause of death was stated to be cardio respiratory arrest due to excessive heamorrhage and multiple chop injury on neck region and death was homicidal in nature, which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶34

9. Now, the next question is, whether the appellant has caused the death of deceased Sirantin Bai ?

¶35

10. Considering the statement of Bhuri Bai (PW-3) and Babli Bai (PW-10), who are the eye-witnesses and had clearly seen the incident, by which, the appellant came and assaulted the deceased by axe, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial court that it is the appellant who had caused the death of

¶36

¶37

deceased is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we affirm the said finding.

¶38

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 can be altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ?

¶39

12. In order to consider whether the case of the appellant is covered under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, it would be appropriate to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v.

¶40

State of Haryana1 wherein it has been observed as

¶41

under :-

¶42

“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 Sukhir 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

¶43

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

¶44

¶45

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.”

¶46

13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana 2, 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, which state as under

¶47

¶48

“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 for its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under :

¶49

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

¶55

¶56

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

¶57

(g) Whether the injury was caused with premeditation in a sudden fight;

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

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.”

¶67

¶68

14. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda 3, 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 is 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

15. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh 4 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

“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

3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

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 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.”

¶76

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)

¶77

“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

¶78

¶79

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”.

¶80

16. 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.

¶81

17. 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

5(2019) 6 SCC 122

¶83

¶84

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

¶85

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

¶86

(ii) There was no premeditation;

¶87

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

¶88

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

¶89

18. 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, but on account of enmity, the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased by axe, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died. The injury No.2 was fatal injury and other injuries were on the non-vital part of the body. 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 and he had not taken any undue advantage and has not acted in unusual manner; as such, the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C.

¶90

19. In view of the above, the conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is altered

¶91

¶92

to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and the appellant is sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, however, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.

¶93

20. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶94

21. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and 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.

¶95

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

¶96

Ashok

Manaram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manaram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Suryavanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Shukla ampOTHERS Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra @ Piluram Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Praveen Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaybabu Shikari @ Kunu Vs State of Chhattisgarh