Partly allowed

Bakhru Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Feb 2024CRA/551/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal regarding murder, the High Court of Chhattisgarh examined whether the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable. The court analyzed factors like suddenness, premeditation, and intent. Ultimately, it held that while there was no intention to kill, the appellant had knowledge that the weapon could cause death, but no undue advantage was taken. Consequently, th

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder is altered to Section 304 Part II IPC; sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Concurrence of other offenses remains intact.

Bakhru Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2017

¶4

{Arising out of judgment dated 04.08.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.R-07/2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Ramanujganj}

¶5

Bakhru Ram, S/o. Jairam, Aged About 28 Years, Caste Uraon, R/o. Village Surbena, Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Civil District Sarguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---Respondent

¶8

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶9

For Appellant : Mr. Azad Siddique, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate

¶10

(Division Bench)

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶12

Judgment On Board (16.02.2024)

¶13

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶14

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 04.08.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, in Sessions Trial No.R-

¶15

¶16

07/2015, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 4 & 5 of C.G. Tonhi Pratadna Niwaran Adhiniyam, 2005 and under Section 450 & 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently :

¶17

CONVICTION	SENTEN	CE
U/s. 4 & 5 of C.G.	: Rigorous impri	sonment for
Tonhi Pratadna	3-3 years an	d fine of
Niwaran Adhiniyam, 2005	Rs.100-100/- default of paym 10 days additio imprisonment.	each, in ent of fine, nal rigorous
U/s. 450 of IPC	: Rigorous impri 5 years and Rs.100/-, in payment of fin additional imprisonment.	sonment for fine of default of e, 10 days rigorous
U/s. 302 of IPC	: Life imprisonm of Rs.500/-, in payment of fin additional imprisonment.	ent and fine default of e, 50 days rigorous

¶18

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.08.2014, at 4:30 p.m., at village Surbena, Police Station- Kusmi, the appellant herein trespassed into the house of complainant Phoolchand and assaulted his mother-in-law Roji Bai (now deceased) by Basula, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby, the offence has been

¶19

¶20

committed. The matter was reported to the police by the son-in-law of deceased Phoolchand (PW-1), pursuant to which, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1, Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-2, Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P-5, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-7 and dead body of deceased Roji Bai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. B.K.Bhagat (PW-10), who proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-11A), in which, cause of death was stated to be hemorrhagic shock and coma due to rupture of brain and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-8, Basula was recovered vide Ex.P-9, but there is no FSL report brought on record. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences 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.

¶21

3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has

¶22

¶23

not examined any witness, but has exhibited the document Ex.D-1.

¶24

4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offences under Section 4 & 5 of C.G. Tonhi Pratadna Niwaran Adhiniyam, 2005 and under Section 450 & 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶25

5. Mr. Azad Siddique, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that taking into the prosecution case as it is, only offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. is made out because on account of suspicion that deceased has played witchcraft upon his wife, the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased and he is in jail since 12.08.2014; therefore, the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. may be altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and he be sentenced to the period already undergone and the appeal be allowed in part.

¶26

6. Mr. Arvind Dubey, 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 the aforesaid offences. He further

¶27

¶28

submits that it is not a case wherein the offence can be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

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

¶30

8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Roji Bai was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report Ex.P-11A proved by Dr. B.K.Bhagat (PW-10), according to which, cause of death was stated to be hemorrhagic shock and coma due to rupture of brain 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.

¶31

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

¶32

10. Taking into consideration the statement of Bisanti (PW-3) who had clearly seen the incident, by which, the appellant trespassed the house and assaulted the deceased by Basula on the pretext that she has played witchcraft upon his wife; she was subjected to cross-examination, but

¶33

¶34

nothing has been extracted, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that appellant had caused the death of deceased Rosi Bai is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we affirm the said finding.

¶35

11. It is stated at the Bar that village Surbena, Police StationKusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, is backward area and it is a fact of common knowledge that the appellant and the deceased belonged to under-developed community and most of them are illiterate and they believe in superstitions. It is a common phenomena in the community dominated areas that they practice magic and many other type of witchcrafts to achieve their object whether good or bad. They hold many superstitions responsible for any misfortune and mis-happenings in their life and sometimes they became revengeful for no other reason but for their own doubts that someone is playing witchcrafts on them or something wrong had been happened in their family or life due to witchcrafts played by someone. Many a time, on the basis of their suspicion, they declare some woman as a witch and even their Panchayat passes weird/hippocratic orders against them.

¶36

¶37

12. 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 PartII of Section 304 of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ?

¶38

13. 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. State

¶39

of Haryana1 wherein it has been observed as under :-

¶40

“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 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.”

¶41

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

¶42

¶43

14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v.

¶44

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 :-

¶45

“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 :

¶46

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

¶47

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

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of

¶56

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

¶57

¶58

nature 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 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.”

¶65

15. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda 3, their

¶66

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

¶67

make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II 3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

¶68

¶69

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.

¶70

16. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v.

¶71

State of Chhattisgarh 4 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-

¶72

“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)

¶73

“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 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

¶74

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶75

¶76

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.”

¶77

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)

¶78

“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

¶79

¶80

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”.

¶81

17. 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.

¶82

18. 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:

¶83

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

¶84

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

¶85

(ii) There was no premeditation;

¶86

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

¶87

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

¶88

19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down

¶89

by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid

¶90

5(2019) 6 SCC 122

¶91

¶92

that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death, but the appellant, on account of suspicion that deceased has played witchcraft upon his wife, by which, she was unwell, is said to have assaulted the deceased by Basula, by which she suffered grievous injury on her head and died. As such, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause death, but the appellant must have had knowledge that the injury 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.

¶93

20. In view of the above, the conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. is altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and the appellant is sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment. However, the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 4 & 5 of C.G. Tonhi Pratadna Niwaran Adhiniyam, 2005 and under Section 450 of Indian Penal Code as well as the fine sentence shall remain intact.

¶94

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

¶95

22. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court

¶96

¶97

for necessary information and action, if any. A certified copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith wherein the appellant is

¶98

suffering the jail sentence.

¶99

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶100

Ashok

Bakhru Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakhru Ram 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

Mintu Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lakkhu Podiyami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sahdev Singh @ Birjhu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rama Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amar Vilas Dhanuwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lalit @ Loha Rathiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh