The High Court altered the appellant's conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, finding the act was committed in sudden fight without premeditation, reducing sentence from life to seven years rigorous imprisonment.
Conviction altered to Section 304 Part II IPC; sentence reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 9
2024:CGHC:36593-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed by VISHAKHA VISHAKHA BEOHAR BEOHAR Date: 2024.09.23 10:33:01 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 806 of 2019
1 - Panchlal S/o Gajadhar Choudhari Aged About 50 Years R/o Piplamar, Police Station-Pendra, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Pendra, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.,
... Respondent
For Appellant :- Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent-State :- Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer.
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Judgment On Board
(19.09.2024)
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
2 / 9
(C.G.) in Session Trial No. 03/2019, whereby and whereunder the
appellant stands convicted & sentenced as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s 302 of IPC | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. |
| 1,000/- in default of payment of fine | |
| further S.I. for 3 months. |
3 / 9
Ex.P/10 was recorded and the FIR was registered vide Ex. P/11 by the complainant- Budhram Choudhari PW-1. Inquest report was recorded vide Ex.P/4. The dead body was sent for autopsy and thereafter, postmortem was conducted by Dr.J.S. Kanwar (PW-05) and the postmortem report was submitted vide Ex.P/5. The Doctor has stated in postmortem report that the cause of death was due to head injury i.e. there was fracture on the left parietal bone of skull and also hematoma in the brain, as such, the death was homicidal in nature. The memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex. P/8 and one wooden stick/wooden plank was seized vide Ex. P/9 from the appellant. The clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex. P/16. The wooden stick and clothes of the deceased were sent for chemical examination and the FSL report was prepared vide Ex.P/18.
4 / 9
against him and the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication.
5 / 9
23.11.2018, hence either the appellant may be acquitted or his conviction may be altered under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
6 / 9
Kumar, who have categorically stated that due to some land dispute, the incident took place between the appellant and the deceased. From the evidence of Dr. J.S. Kanwar (PW-4), it appears that there was only one injury found on the person of the deceased i.e. fracture on her left parietal bone and hematoma was found in the brain, which was the cause of death and according to the Doctor, the deceased died of coma due to head injury. From the aforesaid statement, it is apparent that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and it was caused by the appellant which cannot be disputed.
“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)
1 (2017) 3 SCC 247
7 / 9
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.”
“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”.
8 / 9
appellant were near relatives and neighbours. The appellant was having some grudge regarding his boundary wall with the deceased. According to the appellant, the deceased and his family members have occupied some portion of his land, due to which, on the date of incident, the appellant started removing the fencing of wooden stick. In the said situation, the deceased intervened and objected and, as such, in the spur of moment and in the heat of passion, the appellant gave a single blow on the head of the deceased with wooden plank, due to which she died. Thus, looking to the 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- Hirandiya Bai, but on a sudden quarrel erupted between the appellant and deceased with regard to land dispute and in that event, out of sudden anger, in the heat of passion and without premeditation, the appellant assaulted the deceased with wooden plank, leading to her death. As such, the appellant must have had the knowledge that his act would likely to cause the death of the deceased, but no intention of causing her death can be attributed to him.
9 / 9
knowledge that his act of assault would likely to cause the death of the deceased, his conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is altered to Section 304 Part-II of IPC and he is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment in place of life imprisonment. However, the fine sentence imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge
Vishakha
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the incident fell under Section 302 IPC or Section 304 Part II IPC given the circumstances of sudden fight and lack of premeditation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surinder Kumar v. UT, ChandigarhReferred¶7
(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348 · Who else cites this
Arjun v. State of ChhattisgarhRelied on¶20
(2017) 3 SCC 247 · Who else cites this
Arumugam v. StateReferred¶9
(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Panchlal S/o Gajadhar Choudhari
State Of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Amitendra Kishore Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
