Sant Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 419/2012 by the 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the

¶17

-2-

¶18

(Cr.A. No. 823 of 2017)

¶19

offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months.

¶20

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.10.2012 at about 02:00 p.m., in his home at Village Nunera Tikrapara under Police Station Udaipur, District Sarguja, the appellant, Sant Kumar, assaulted his wife Gouribai by wooden stick on account of which, she suffered grievous injuries and died, thereby committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶21

3. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant was addicted to liquor and used to quarrel with her wife, Gouribai (now deceased) and aggrieved of which, about 20-25 days prior to the date of incident, she had gone to her parental home and was residing with her father, Ramkaleshwar (PW-1). Subsequently, the appellant came to the house of Ramkaleshwar (PW-1) and took the deceased Gouribai with him for the purpose of performing some rituals at his home. Thereafter, when Ramkaleshwar (PW-1) was going to the house of the appellant to meet his daughter Gouribai, near the handpump he saw the appellant with a wooden-stick on his

¶22

-3-

¶23

(Cr.A. No. 823 of 2017)

¶24

hand and when he asked the appellant as to where he was going then he told him of his going to the liquor shop. Ramkaleshwar (PW-1) then reached to the house of the appellant and called out the deceased but on getting no reply, when he looked inside the house he found his daughter Gourbai lying dead and there was bleeding in her head. Thereafter, he called his brothers and, on enquiry, the appellant stated that he had caused murder of his wife Gouribai by assaulting her with wooden-stick.

¶25

4. Thereafter, the matter was reported by Ramkaleshwar (PW-1) at Police Station Udaipur on the basis of which, Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-12 and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-11. Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P-6. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex.P-2 and the dead-body of deceased Gouribai was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-13) vide Ex.P-9 in which the cause of death of deceased Gouribai was opined to be 'coma' and the nature of death was homicidal. The appellant was arrested vide Ex. P-16. Articles were seized vide Exs. P-3, P-4 & P-7 and sent for forensic examination but no FSL report has been brought on record.

¶26

-4-

¶27

(Cr.A. No. 823 of 2017)

¶28

5. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC before the concerned jurisdictional Criminal Court and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur (Surguja) for trial and its disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial.

¶29

6. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. In defence, one witness has been examined and one document has been exhibited as Ex.D-1.

¶30

7. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court, by impugned judgment and order dated 24.2.2014, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

¶31

8. Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injuries caused by the appellant were not sufficient to cause death in the

¶32

-5-

¶33

(Cr.A. No. 823 of 2017)

¶34

ordinary course of nature and therefore, the case of the appellant would not fall under Section 300-Thirdly of IPC but it would fall under Section 304 Part-I of IPC, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC be converted to Section 304 Part-I of IPC and the appellant be sentenced for the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 17.10.2012.

¶35

9. Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned State counsel would submit that considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He further submits that it is not the case where the sentence of the appellant can be converted to Part-I of Section 304 of IPC and, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

11. The first question, as to whether the death of deceased Gouribai was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement

¶38

1 (2016) 3 SCC 317

¶39

-6-

¶40

(Cr.A. No. 823 of 2017)

¶41

of Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-13) who has conducted and proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-9) in which the cause of death of deceased Gouribai has been opined to be coma due to head injury and the nature of death has been stated to be homicidal, which, in our considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding of the trial Court holding that the death of deceased Gouribai was homicidal in nature.

¶42

12. Now, the next question is as to whether the appellant has caused death of his wife Gouribai?

¶43

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with wooden stick at his house, due to which, she suffered grievous injuries and died, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding of the trial Court holding that the appellant has caused death of his wife Gouribai.

¶44

14. Now, the next question for consideration is, as to whether the case of the appellant would fall under

¶45

-7-

¶46

(Cr.A. No. 823 of 2017)

¶47

Section 304 Part-I of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶48

15. The Supreme Court in the matter of Nankaunoo (supra),

¶49

in paragraph 12 & 13, has held as under :

¶50

"12. The emphasis in clause three of Section 300 IPC is on the sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The sufficiency is the high probability of death in the ordinary course of nature. When the sufficiency exists and death follows, causing of such injury is intended and causing of such offence is murder. For ascertaining the sufficiency of the injury, sometimes the nature of the weapon used, sometimes the part of the body on which the injury is caused and sometimes both are relevant. Depending on the nature of weapon used and situs of the injury, in some cases, the sufficiency of injury to cause death in the ordinary course of nature must be proved and cannot be inferred from the fact that death has, in fact, taken place.

¶51

13. Keeping in view the above principles, when we examine the facts of the present case, the deceased sustained gunshot wound of entry 1½” x 1½” on the back and inner part of left thigh, six gunshot wounds of exit each 1/3” x 1/3” in size in front and middle left thigh. Due to the occurrence in the morning at the barber shop of the deceased, the appellant emerged from the northern side of the grove carrying pistol in his hand and fired at the deceased. The weapon used and the manner in which attack was made and the injury was inflicted due to premeditation clearly establish that the appellant intended to cause the injury. Once it is established that the accused intentionally inflicted the

¶52

-8-

¶53

(Cr.A. No. 823 of 2017)

¶54

injury, then the offence would be murder, if it is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. We find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant the injury was on the inner part of left thigh, which is the non-vital organ. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the gunshot injury was caused in the inner part of left thigh, the sufficiency of injury to cause death must be proved and cannot be inferred from the fact that death has taken place. But the prosecution has not elicited from the doctors that the gunshot injury on the inner part of left thigh caused rupture of any important blood vessel and that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Keeping in view the situs and nature of injury and in the absence of evidence elicited from the doctor that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC should be under Section 304 Part-1 of IPC.

¶55

16. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nankaunoo (supra), it is quite vivid that Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-13) who has conducted the post-mortem of deceased Gouribai has briefly stated that there was contusion of 6x3 cm on the back side of neck, scratch was on the back side of the head and blood was coming out from the right ear and nose of the deceased but he did not

¶56

-9-

¶57

(Cr.A. No. 823 of 2017)

¶58

opine that the said injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of deceased Gouribai. Keeping in view the situs and the nature of the injuries, in absence of evidence given by the Doctor (PW13) that the injuries suffered by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death, we are of the considered opinion that the principles of law laid down in Nankaunoo (supra) will apply to the facts of the present case.

¶59

17. In view of the above, the conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is modified to one under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, maintaining the fine amount with default stipulation as imposed by the trial Court. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 17.10.2012 i.e., more than 11 years, as such, he has already completed 10 years of imprisonment as awarded under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. We therefore direct that the appellant be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶60

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

¶61

19. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial

¶62

-10-

¶63

(Cr.A. No. 823 of 2017)

¶64

Court and the concerned Superintendent of Jail be also supplied with the certified copy of this judgment for information and necessary action, if any, at the earliest.

¶65

SD/SD/-

¶66

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶67

Amardeep

Sant Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Kumar 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

Bahoran Korwa Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Punau Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bheem Kumar and Another Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harbhajan Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Joshi @ Nanka Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sukhlal Gond Vs State Of Chhattisgarh