Partly allowed

Dinesh Kumar Dhritlahre v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Dec 2024CRA/624/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Special Criminal Appeal No. 624/2020 considered a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC and life imprisonment. The Court found the incident constituted Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC due to sudden quarrel, no premeditation, heat of passion, and no undue advantage. The conviction was converted to Section 304 Part-II IPC with an eight-year sentence, allowing release upon serving

What did the court decide?

Conviction set aside from S. 302 IPC and convicted under S. 304 Part-II IPC. Sentence awarded eight years RI. Appellant released on completion of remaining term.

Dinesh Kumar Dhritlahre Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed AMARDEEP by AMARDEEPCHOUBEY CHOUBEY Date: 2024.12.12 15:38:20 +0530

CRA No.624/2020

2024:CGHC:48511-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 624 of 2020

¶7

Dinesh Kumar Dhritlahre S/o Goverdhan Dhritlahre, Aged About 35 Years Occupation Rajmistari Permanent R/o Gram - Panayka, Police Station Piperia, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant (s)

¶9

versus

¶10

The State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station - Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, J

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J

¶16

10/12/2024

¶17

This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16/12/2019, passed by the Court

¶18

¶19

CRA No.624/2020

¶20

of learned Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 35/2019, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶21

Case of the prosecution, in brief, are that Sukhbati (deceased) is the wife of appellant herein. Sukhbati (deceased), wife of the appellant came to Urla along with her children to the house of her elder sister-Satwantin Dhrtlahare's(PW-5) on 26.06.2019 in the morning. On being asked, Sukhbati (deceased) told her sisterSatwantin that her husband/accused used to fight with her after consuming alcohol. On 27.06.2019 at around 6:00 pm, accused came to Urla in a drunken condition and was trying to take his wife Sukhbati forcibly, which Satwantin's husband- Dakwar Nath(PW-7) stopped him. After that, Dakwar Nath dropped the appellant, Sukhbati(deceased) and her two children in village Kodwa in his car. In the maternal home of deceased Sukhbati, her grandmother Maan Bai (PW-1) was staying in Kodwa for the last 15-20 days. On the date of incident i.e. 28.06.2019, around 8:00 am, Sukhbati's grandmother Maan Bai (PW-1) and Sukhbati(deceased) were both sitting in the verandah and picking

¶22

¶23

CRA No.624/2020

¶24

rice, where accused Dinesh was sitting near the wall. At the same time, accused Dinesh picked up the pickaxe kept in the room near the verandah and assaulted on the back side of head of his wife Sukhbati(deceased), due to which, blood was oozing out from her head. Subsequently, the appellant again tried to assault the deceased but Maan Bai stopped him. Due to the injuries caused by the appellant, Sukhbati died on the spot. Thereafter, on hearing the voice, villager came to the spot and Maan Bai narrated the whole incident to the villager. The incident was reported to the concerned Police Station and lodged Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P-01), thereafter, Merg intimation (Ex/P-22) was registered and inquest report was prepared vide Ex.P-4. On the basis of Dehati Nalsi, FIR (Ex.P-23) was registered against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.0237/2019 at P.S. Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/13 and Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/5-A. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/14), Dr. A.K. Verma (PW12) opined that the cause of death of deceased was cardiorespiratory arrest due to injury of vital organ brain & subarachnoid hemorrhage due to head injury and the nature of

¶25

¶26

CRA No.624/2020

¶27

death was homicidal. Thereafter, appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/11 and his memorandum statement was recorded (Ex.P/10) pursuant to which, seizure of articles (Exs.P/4 & 5) were made and sent for chemical examination to FSL. In the FSL report, blood was found on the clothes of the appellant and deceased. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared.

¶28

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either.

¶29

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

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and taking the case of

¶31

¶32

CRA No.624/2020

¶33

the prosecution as it is, only offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is made out against the appellant, as the appellant has no motive to cause death of the deceased. Thus, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and, further, since the appellant is in jail since 28/06/2019 i.e. more than 05 years, 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.

¶34

Per-contra , 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 for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Exception 04 to Section 300 of IPC is not attracted in this case and it is not a case where conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC requires to be altered to Section 304 Part-II of IPC, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

¶36

CRA No.624/2020

¶37

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

¶38

The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. A.K. Verma (PW-12). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) and the statement of Dr. A.K. Verma (PW-12), we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased 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.

¶39

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

¶40

Looking to the statement of Maan Bai (PW-1), who is the eye witness in the present case, deposed that after cooking food, she was picking rice along with deceased in the verandah, at that time,

¶41

¶42

CRA No.624/2020

¶43

appellant was sitting near the wall. Thereafter, she saw that the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of pickaxe , due to which, the deceased suffered injury on her head and fell down. Subsequently, the appellant again tried to assault the deceased, but she stopped him. On hearing the voice, Kartik Banjare (PW-2), Raviskankar Banjare (PW-3), Yashoda Banjare (PW-4), Santoshi Banjare (PW-6) and other villager came to the spot and she narrated the whole incident to them. Later, the said incident was informed to the police. Moreover, on the basis of memorandum, the weapon i.e. pickaxe was seized and sent for chemical examination to FSL , we hereby accept the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellant-accused who assaulted deceased by which she suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant has caused the injuries upon the deceased is based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question.

¶44

The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, which is, whether the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC or his case is covered with Exception 4 of Section 300 of

¶45

¶46

CRA No.624/2020

¶47

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 appellant ?

¶48

It is apparent from the FIR and merg inquiry that at the time when the incident took place, the appellant-accused had assaulted deceased by means of pickaxe , due to which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died.

¶49

The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1 has observed as under:-

¶50

“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.”

¶51

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

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

CRA No.624/2020

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 :-

¶56

“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 :

¶57

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

¶58

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

¶59

(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in 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.

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

CRA No.624/2020

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

¶74

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

¶75

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.”

¶76

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

¶77

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, 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

3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

¶80

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶81

¶82

CRA No.624/2020

¶83

“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)

¶84

“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.”

¶85

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)

¶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

¶87

¶88

CRA No.624/2020

¶89

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”.

¶90

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.

¶91

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:

5 (2019) 6 SCC 122

CRA No.624/2020

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

¶96

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

¶97

(ii) There was no premeditation;

¶98

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

¶99

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

¶100

Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of above

¶101

principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, but it appears from the memorandum statement of the appellant that on the date of incident, when the deceased was picking rice along with her grandmother-Maan Bai (PW-1), the appellant asked for food, but the deceased refused to give him, thereafter, dispute occurred between the appellant and deceased, then out of anger and in heat of passion, the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased by means of pickaxe , due to which, the deceased suffered injury on her head and died. However, there is only one injury caused by the appellant/accused to the deceased by pick axe. 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 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

¶102

¶103

CRA No.624/2020

¶104

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 of IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

¶105

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 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 the deceased, but the injury caused by him was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and there was only one injury caused to deceased, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for eight years. The fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact.

¶106

The appellant is reported to be in jail since 28/06/2019. Thus, the appellant be released from jail on completion of his respective remaining period of sentence, if not required in any other case.

¶107

As an upshot, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶108

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record

¶109

¶110

CRA No.624/2020

¶111

be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action.

¶112

Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶113

SD/SD/- (Rajani Dubey) (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Judge

¶114

Amardeep

Dinesh Kumar Dhritlahre v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Dhritlahre v. the 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

Jagannath Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Vs Venkateshwar Prasad Chandrakar

Indradev Chouhan Vs Ajay Singh

S. R. Health Care Services Private Limited, Vs Dr. Sheetal Yadav

Surendra Sharma Vs Smt. Priyanka Sharma

Rajesh Agrawal Vs Subodh Kumar Agrawal