Partly allowed

Munna Singh @ Kabil Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2024CRA/731/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench examined a criminal appeal where the appellant challenged conviction under IPC 302. Acknowledging no premeditation, no undue advantage, and no cruel manner of killing, the court held the case fell under Exception 4 to IPC 300. Consequently, the conviction was altered from murder to culpable homicide punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC, reducing the sentence to seven years r

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to 07 years rigorous imprisonment; fine remains intact.

Munna Singh @ Kabil Singh Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶3

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT Date: 2024.09.13 16:22:18 +0530

¶4

2024:CGHC:35585-DB

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶8

Munna Singh @ Kabil Singh S/o Mohan Singh, aged about 46 years, caste Kanwar, occupation labour, R/o village Bargawa, Loharpara, Police Station Darima, District-Surguja (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police of Police Station-Darima, District-Surguja (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Appellant :- Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate/PL appointed through C.G. High Court Legal Committee. For Respondent-State :- Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Division Bench

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment On Board

¶17

(11.09.2024)

¶18

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J

¶19

The appellant is calling in question the Judgment of

¶20

conviction and order of sentence passed against him by

¶21

¶22

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶23

the learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 77/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/along with default sentences.

¶24

The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 12.04.2018 complainant Ramprasad (PW-1) has lodged an FIR vide Ex.P-01A stating that one Sushmita Singh has informed him that Jeevan Singh has been killed by the appellant Munna Singh @ Kabil Singh being suspect of the crime. On the basis of said information FIR was registered vide Ex.P-01A. Merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-2. Inquest proceeding vide Ex.P-03A was conducted, Spot Map was prepared vide Ex. P-05, Panchnama was prepared vide Ex. P-06 and the dead body was sent for autopsy vide Ex. P-07. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-05) and has submitted his report vide Ex.P-07. The appellant was arrested vide Ex. P-13, his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex. P-11 and on his memorandum statement seizure of one axe was seized from him.

¶25

¶26

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶27

During investigation 161 CrPc statement of Hetram (PW07) was recorded on 13.04.2018 who has categorically stated that on date of incident in the noon at about 02:00-02:30, the appellant came behind of deceased and has given a single blow of axe due to which deceased fell on the stones and thereafter the appellant went away. According to the autopsy a depressed wound in occipital region of head measuring 3.5x 2.5 cm and as per opined of Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-05) deceased died due to coma because of injuries sustained by him injuries were homicidal in nature.

¶28

After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted 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.

¶29

During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents, whereas, the appellant in defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the

¶30

¶31

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶32

evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶33

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, and also relying upon the statement of eye witness Hetram (PW07) and on the basis of corroboration of the evidence by memorandum of appellant, seizure of articles and on the basis of FSL report vide Ex. P/21 which were duly supported. The appellant has challenged his conviction and has filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment passed against him.

¶34

Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court is wholly unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question. He further submits that in the FIR vide Ex. P/01A and Merg vide Ex. P/02 the appellant was named on the basis of suspicion. The memorandum and seizure made from him is of no consequence as in the FSL report vide Ex.P-21 blood stains were found only on the clothes of the deceased as such without any evidence the conviction is bad in law. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken into consideration in toto then also the appellant is required to be acquitted from all the charges and even

¶35

¶36

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶37

the prosecution case is taken as it is, it would be a case, of commission of offence 304 Part II of the IPC because he was not having any intention to kill the deceased but he was having knowledge. The appellant is in jail since 13.04.2018 i.e. more than 6 years have been completed and, 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 the IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part.

¶38

Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State counsel opposed the submission made by the counsel for the appellant stating that from the evidence of eye witness Hetram (PW-07) and from the evidence of Doctor as well as on the basis of memorandum, seizure made from the accused and from the FSL report it is apparent that it was the appellant who has committed the murder of the deceased the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. It has been stated by him that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant which is not required to be interfered with. Though he has not disputed this fact that the appellant has given single blow from the blunt side of axe and he has not taken any advantage or has not given repeated blow in

¶39

¶40

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶41

any cruelsome manner. The appellant in crime in question and 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 appellant has rightly been convicted for the offence in question. Thus, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶42

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records minutely.

¶43

The first question, as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative which relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.07) proved by Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-05), which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding of the trial Court holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶47

Considering the statement of eye witness Hetram (PW07) who has categorically stated that on date of incident in the noon at about 02:00-02:30, the appellant came behind the deceased and gave a single blow of axe due to which deceased fell on the stones and thereafter the appellant went away from the scene of occurance. According to the post mortem report a depressed wound in occipital region of head measuring 3.5x 2.5 cm was found and as per opinion of Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW05) deceased died due to coma because of injuries sustained by him, injuries were homicidal in nature. Thus, the trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant who assaulted the deceased by axe by which he suffered grievous injuries and died and, as such, we hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court.

¶48

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

¶49

The Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh1 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under:-

¶50

“20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to be fulfilled have been laid down by this

¶51

1 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶52

¶53

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶54

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)

¶55

“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.”

¶56

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)

¶57

“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

¶58

¶59

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶60

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”.

¶61

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.

¶62

Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir vs. State (NCT of Delhi)2 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:-

¶63

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

¶64

(i)There must be a sudden fight;

¶65

2 (2019) 6 SCC 122

¶66

¶67

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶68

(ii)There was no premeditation;

¶69

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

¶70

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

¶71

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh passed in CRA No. 3185/2024 decided on 02.08.2024 reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1877 has held as under:-

¶72

“18. It is further to be seen that there is no evidence to show that the appellant has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. It is further to be seen that the weapon used is a pocketknife. The injury caused by the said knife is a single injury.

¶73

We, therefore, find that, in the totality of the circumstances and, particularly, on account of the injuries sustained by the accussed persons, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. We are, therefore, inclined to partly allow the present appeal. It is ordered accordingly.”

¶74

Coming to the facts of the present case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above stated decisions, it is quite vivid from the statement of Hetram (PW-07) that it was the appellant who, on the date of incident, quarreled with the deceased and out of anger, assaulted the deceased with the axe, by which deceased suffered grievous

¶75

¶76

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶77

injuries and died. Thus, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident and the nature of injury found on the person of the deceased, it is clear that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, as such, the appellant must have had knowledge that their act would likely to cause the death of the deceased but no intention of causing his death can be attributed to him.

¶78

In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the case of the appellant is covered with 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 of the IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

¶79

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC as well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside.

¶80

¶81

CRA No. 731 of 2019

¶82

Considering the fact that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and the injuries caused by him were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years, however, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact.

¶83

This criminal appeal is partly allowed .

¶84

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.

¶85

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Raghu Jat

Munna Singh @ Kabil Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna Singh @ Kabil Singh 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

Bharat Krishi Kendra Vs Union of India

Tilsai Manjhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parmeshwar Berijia Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Guleshwar Gendre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manohar Lal Ghritlahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh @ Ramlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh