Panchram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶6

(Arising out of judgment dated 27.09.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.22/2016 by the Sessions Judge, Balod Bazar, District Balod Bazar, C.G.)

¶7

Panchram S/o Dewan Binjhwar, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Ghutikona, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Appellant :- Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For State/Respondent :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate.

¶13

Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (12.02.2024)

¶14

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶15

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant-accused is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Baloda

¶16

2

¶17

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶18

Bazar, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 22/2016 by which appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of 500/-; in default of payment of fine₹ additional simple imprisonment for six months. Coaccused Sanjay @ Butaloo is absconding.

¶19

Case of the prosecution in, nutshell, is that appellant herein along with co-accused Sanjay @ Butaloo (absconded), in furtherance of their common intention, caused arrow blow to Jeetram (now deceased) by which he (deceased) suffered grievous injuries and died. It is further case of the prosecution that on 17.02.2016 at about 9:00 pm, Gajanan (not examined) and Premlal (PW-4) informed Tameshwar (PW-1), son of the deceased, that unknown person has caused arrow blow to his father (deceased) due to which he (deceased) suffered grievous injuries and died, thereafter, he (PW-1) went the spot along with Premlal (PW-4) & Gajanan (not examined) where he found his father dead. Upon finding out he (PW-1) got information from Nanki Noni (PW-3), wife of the deceased, & Savitri (PW-2), sister-in-law of the deceased, that appellant herein along with co-accused Sanjay @ Butaloo had caused arrow

¶20

3

¶21

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶22

blow to his father by which he (deceased) suffered grievous injuries and died pursuant to which merg and FIR were registered vide Exs.P/1 & P/2, respectively. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/11) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/3), proved by Dr. Narayan Sahu (PW-8) cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest due to external and internal haemorrhages. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/6) iron part of the arrow was seized vide Ex.P/7. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and in FSL report (Ex.P/23) on iron part of arrow (article D) stains of blood was found.

¶23

After due investigation, appellant herein was chargesheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

¶24

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents and defence in support of its case has examined 2 witnesses, but not exhibited any document.

¶25

4

¶26

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶27

The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶28

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶29

Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant, submit that appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question on account property dispute and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. He also submits that the statements of Nanki Noni (PW-3) & Savitri (PW-2), alleged eyewitnesses to the incident, are not reliable. He further submits that taking the case of the prosecution as it is, at best, the conviction for offence under Section 304 Part II would be made out and the appellant is in jail since 18.02.2016, more than 7

¶30

5

¶31

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶32

years 11 months, and, as such, it is a fit case where conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted / altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part.

¶33

On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. He also submits that Nanki Noni (PW-3) & Savitri (PW-2) have duly supported the case of the prosecution and pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant iron part of the arrow was seized on which in FSL report stains of blood was found. He further submits that it is not the case of alteration of offence from under Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC where the conviction of the appellant can be modified for lesser offence, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

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

¶35

6

¶36

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶37

Now, the first question is, whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature?

¶38

In this regard, the learned trial Court has recorded the finding in affirmative that the death of Jeetram (deceased) was homicidal in nature on the basis of the postmortem report (Ex.P/3), proved by Dr. Narayan Sahu (PW-8), which is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶39

Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant has assaulted the deceased?

¶40

Considering the statements of Nanki Noni (PW-3) & Savitri (PW-2) in which they have clearly implicated the appellant herein in crime in question by stating that they have seen the appellant herein and co-accused Sanjay @ Butaloo assaulting the deceased by arrow by which he suffered grievous injuries and died and further considering the fact that pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/6) iron part of the arrow was seized (Ex.P/7) on which in FSL report (Ex.P/23) blood was found, the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant

¶41

7

¶42

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶43

along with the co-accused Sanjay @ Butaloo (absconded) had caused the arrow blow to the deceased by which he (deceased) suffered grievous injuries and died, which is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record and, as such, we hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court.

¶44

Now, the question is, whether the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC?

¶45

The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v.

¶46

State of Haryana 1 has observed as under:-

¶47

“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 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.”

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

8

CRA No. 57 of 2017

The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v.

¶52

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 of IPC, which state as under :-

¶53

“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 :

¶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 2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

¶64

9

¶65

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶66

the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock;

¶67

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

¶68

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

¶69

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

¶70

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

¶71

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

¶72

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.”

¶73

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 has further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC,

3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

10

CRA No. 57 of 2017

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.

¶78

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 :-

¶79

“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)

¶80

“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

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

11

CRA No. 57 of 2017

of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.”

¶85

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)

¶86

“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”.

¶87

12

¶88

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶89

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.

¶90

Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir vs. 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:-

¶91

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

¶92

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

¶93

(ii) There was no premeditation;

¶94

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

¶95

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

¶96

Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-stated judgments, it is quite vivid that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of Jeetram (deceased), since there was dispute with regard to land for growing crops, the appellant is said to have

5 (2019) 6 SCC 122

13

CRA No. 57 of 2017

assaulted the deceased by arrow by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. Considering the nature of injuries which have occurred on the body of the deceased and further considering the medical evidence available on the record, it is quite vivid that appellant must have had knowledge that such injury 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 to 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 and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 of IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC.

¶101

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC as well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Considering that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of Jeetram (deceased), but the

¶102

14

¶103

CRA No. 57 of 2017

¶104

injuries caused by him were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Jeetram, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 of the IPC and he is sentenced to the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 18.02.2016, more than 7 years 11 months, however, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. Accordingly, appellant be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter.

¶105

This criminal appeal is partly allowed .

¶106

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and the copy of this judgment be supplied to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where he is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶107

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶108

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶109

Ankit

Panchram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchram 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

Maheshwar Sinha @ Monu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ipra Venkat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chaitram Agariya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sukhna Pahadi Korwa Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Akela Prasad Basor @ Chhod Bigan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Santu Das Manikpuri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh