Chhatram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:45842-DB

¶3

ASHOK SAHU

¶4

Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2024.11.25 10:38:45 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 627 of 2019

¶8

{Arising out of judgment dated 15.02.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.50/2018 by the learned Additional Judge Katghora of the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba}

¶9

Chhatram Yadav, S/o. Horiram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Amarpur, Bagdeva, Police Station - Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

For Appellant : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer

¶15

(Division Bench)

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

(22.11.2024)

¶19

2

¶20

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶21

1 . This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 15.02.2019, passed by the learned Additional Judge of the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, in Sessions Trial No.50/2018, by which, the sole appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

¶22

2 . Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.04.2018 at 8:00 P.M. at village Amarpur, Bagdeva, Police StationKatghora, District Korba, the appellant herein assaulted his wife Laxmin Bai (now deceased) by iron axe, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died. Sahasram (PW-1) reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-3, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1, Crime Details Form was prepared vide Ex.P-2, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and dead body of deceased Laxmin Bai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. R.P.S.Kanwar (PW-10), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-12, in which, cause of death was stated to be haemorrhagic shock due to injury

¶23

3

¶24

over neck and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-9), iron axe was seized vide Ex.P-10, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along-with other seized articles and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-18), human blood was found on the seized weapon of offence i.e. iron axe. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence 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.

¶25

3 . In order to bring home the offences, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶26

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

¶27

4

¶28

5 . Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that, at the most, the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. is made out against the appellant, as it is an admitted case of the prosecution and found proved by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment that on account of not cooking food and abusing the appellant by deceased, the appellant, in a heat of anger, is said to have assaulted the deceased by axe, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, there was no premeditation & intention on the part of the appellant, but he had knowledge that the injury caused by him is likely to cause death. Therefore, the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and he be sentenced for the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 22.04.2018.

¶29

6 . Mr. Pankaj Singh, 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 offence. He further submits that it is not a case where the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be converted to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶30

5

¶31

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

¶32

8 . The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Laxmin Bai was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-12) proved by Dr. R.P.S. Kanwar (PW-10), according to which, cause of death was stated to be haemorrhagic shock due to injury over neck 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.

¶33

9 . Now, the next question is, whether the appellant has caused the death of his wife Laxmin Bai ?

¶34

10. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by the trial Court, it is the appellant & deceased who were living together in the house on the date and time of offence and non-else was there in the house and therefore Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act has been applied for convicting the appellant. Furthermore, pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, weapon of offence i.e. iron axe was recovered on which human blood was found as per the

¶35

6

¶36

FSL report (Ex.P-18). As such, 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 deceased is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we affirm the said finding.

¶37

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 under Section 302 of I.P.C. can be altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ?

¶38

12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh 1 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-

¶39

“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)

¶40

“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

¶41

1 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶42

7

¶43

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.”

¶44

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)

¶45

“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

¶46

8

¶47

cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provisions means “unfair advantage”.

¶48

13. 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 of I.P.C. 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 of I.P.C.

¶49

14. 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 as per statement of Horiram (PW-2), father of the appellant, since the deceased has not cooked food on being asked by the appellant and she abused him, therefore, the appellant became angery and assaulted the deceased by axe, by which, she suffered two grievous injuries and died. Furthermore, Smt. Reena Yadav (PW-8), appellant’s younger brother’s wife, has also reiterated the same version in para 3 and on being leading question asked by the prosecution, it has been clearly stated that the appellant has assaulted his wife because she has not cooked food. As such, only on the petty dispute of not cooking food by the wife of appellant and also

¶50

9

¶51

abusing him, the appellant became angry and assaulted his wife (deceased) by axe, by which, he suffered two grievous injuries and died. 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, as such, the case of the appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C.

¶52

15. 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 8 years rigorous imprisonment.

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶56

Ashok

Chhatram Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatram Yadav 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

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs Pragatisheel Chhattisgarh Satnami Samaj

Rajkumar Kathe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Xalxo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Vandana Rolling Mills Ltd.

Chaitram Taram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kavita Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh