Chattisgarh High Court
Nandpyala Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 June, 2024
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No.990 of 2018
Nandpyala Ram S/o Ratiya Ram Korwa, Aged About
23 Years R/o Sihardand, Police Station Bagicha,
District Jashpur Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House
Officer, Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/State: Shri Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment on Board
(25/06/2024)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein
under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 28.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.22/2018, by which, he has
been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of
the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three
months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
04.12.2017 at about 11.30 PM at Village Sihardand Kaliya
Bagicha, Thana Bagicha, District Jashpur, there was an
altercation which took place between the appellant herein
and the deceased-Deepti Bai as she refused to accompany
him and thereafter, the appellant in a fit of anger, assaulted
the deceased-Deepti Bai with the help of torch, by which,
she suffered grievous injuries and died. Merg intimation
was recorded by Rupan Ram vide Ex.P-1. Rupan Ram (PW-
6) reported the matter to the Police Station-Bagicha, District
Jashpur and FIR (Ex.P-2) was lodged against the appellant
herein, pursuant to which, offence under Section 302 of the
IPC was registered against him and the wheels of
investigation started running. Thereafter, inquest was
conducted vide Ex.P-4 and spot map was prepared vide
Ex.P-13. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of
Appellant herein (Ex.P-7), torch and clothes of the appellant
herein were seized vide Ex.P-8. The seized articles were
subjected to forensic examination and vide FSL Report
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
(Ex.P-17), it was opined that the aforesaid seized articles
contained human blood. Dead body was subjected to
postmortem and postmortem of the dead body of the
deceased-Deepti Bai was conducted by Dr. Jayant Ram
Bhagat (PW-10) and his report is Ex.P-10 and cause of
death was stated to be cerebral injury due to formation of
hematoma and it was stated to be homicidal in nature. The
jurisdictional police carried out the investigation and
charge-sheeted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.
The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence by
stating that he has not committed the offence and he has
been falsely implicated in the offence in question.
3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution
has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 24
documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-24). Statement of the appellant-
accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his
defence.
4. The learned trial Court, after appreciating oral and
documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced
the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC in the manner
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment,
against which, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the
appellant, would submit that considering the finding
recorded by the learned trial Court at para-18 of the
impugned judgment, offence under Section 302 of the IPC is
not made out against the appellant, but, at the most,
offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC only is made
out and appellant be sentenced for the period already
undergone by him, as he is in jail since 06.12.2017 i.e.
more than 6 years and the appeal be allowed in part.
6. Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned State counsel, would submit
that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and it is not a
case where the sentence of the appellant can be converted
to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and, as such, the instant
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein-above and
went through the records with utmost circumspection.
8. The first question for consideration as to whether the
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
death of deceased-Deepti Bai was homicidal in nature, has
been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon
the postmortem report Ex.P-10 proved by Dr. Jayant Ram
Bhagat (PW-10), according to which, cause of death was
stated to be cerebral injury due to formation of hematoma
and it was stated to be 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.
9. Now, the next question is, whether the appellant has
assaulted Deepti Bai by torch and he has caused death of
the deceased-Deepti Bai ?
10. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court at
para-18 of the impugned judgment regarding presence of
human blood on the seized articles and the extra-judicial
confession made by the appellant before Roman Ram (PW-
5), Rupan Ram (PW-6) and Byatri Bai (PW-8), is a correct
finding of fact based on the evidence available on record
that it is the appellant, who has caused death of deceased-
Deepti Bai, and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
finding.
11. Now, the question would be whether the case of the
appellant would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of
IPC and, as such, their conviction can be altered either to
Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 of IPC, as contended by
learned counsel for the appellant ?
12. In order to consider whether the case of the appellant
is covered under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, it would
be appropriate to notice the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of
Haryana1 wherein it has been observed as under :-
"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 Sukhir
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
1 (2002) 3 SCC 327
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
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."
13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh
v. State of Haryana2, 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, which state as under :-
"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
for its special perspective. The relevant
factors are as under :
(a) Motive or previous enmity;
(b) Whether the incident had taken
place on the spur of the moment;
(c) The intention/knowledge of the
accused while inflicting the blow or
injury;
2 (2009) 15 SCC 635
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
(d) Whether the death ensued
instantaneously or the victim died
after several days;
(e) The gravity, dimension and
nature of injury;
(f) The age and general health
condition of the accused;
(g) Whether the injury was caused
with premeditation in a sudden
fight;
(h) The nature and size of weapon
used for inflicting the injury and
the force with which the blow was
inflicted;
(i) The criminal background and
adverse history of the accused;
(j) Whether the injury inflicted was
not sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature death but the
death was because of shock;
(k) Number of other criminal cases
pending against the accused;
(l) Incident occurred within the
family members or close relations;
(m) The conduct and behaviour of
the accused after the incident.
Whether the accused had taken
the injured/the deceased to the
hospital immediately to ensure
that he/she gets proper medical
treatment ?
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
These are some of the factors which
can be taken into consideration while
granting an appropriate sentence to
the accused.
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."
14. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda3,
their 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 is 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
3 (2012) 8 SCC 450
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to
cause death.
15. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v.
State of Chhattisgarh4 has elaborately dealt with the issue
and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as
under :-
"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)
"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
4 (2017) 3 SCC 247
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
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."
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)
"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
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
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".
16. 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 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.
17. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir
v. State (NCT of Delhi)5 has laid down four ingredients
5 (2019) 6 SCC 122
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
which should be tested for bring a case within the purview
of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under:
"16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to
Section 300 IPC shows that the
following four ingredients are required:
(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 offender had not taken any
undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner."
18. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid
down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and further
considering the charge levelled upon the appellant, it is
quite vivid that the appellant herein and the deceased-
Deepti Bai consumed liquor in the house of Gokul Uraon
and the appellant stayed there, while his wife came back to
house for preparing food, but, after return of the appellant,
his wife-Deepti Bai was not in the house and she was found
at the house of Elvin (PW-1), who has turned hostile and it
is not proved by the testimony of Roman Ram (PW-5),
Rupan Ram (PW-6) and Byatri Bai (PW-8), before whom, the
appellant has made extra-judicial confession and thereafter,
when the appellant herein requested her to come back, she
refused to accompany him, as such, in a fit of anger, the
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
appellant has assaulted the deceased-Deepti Bai with the
help of torch on her head, due to which, she suffered
grievous injuries and died, but, there was no premeditation
or motive to cause death and he must have had knowledge
that those injuries would likely to cause death and the
appellant had not taken any undue advantage and has not
acted in unusual manner; thus, the case of the appellant
would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of I.P.C.
19. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2018 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur in Sessions Trial
No.22/2018 is hereby set aside. The conviction of appellant
for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of
I.P.C. is altered to Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and he is
sentenced to the period already undergone by him.
Appellant has already completed more than six years in jail
as he is in jail since 06.12.2017, therefore, he shall be
released forthwith from jail, unless he is required in any
other offence.
20. In view of the above, this criminal appeal is partly
allowed.
21. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:21595-DB
original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned
for necessary information and action, if any. A certified copy
of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent forthwith wherein the appellant is suffering
the jail sentence.
SD/- SD/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Tumane
