Manipur High Court
Patel Rameshore Baburao vs The State Of Manipur on 21 May, 2025
reportable
IN THE COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Cril.Appeal 12 of 2017
Patel Rameshore Baburao, aged about 32 years, Convict No. C- 17250, confined
in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune-6, Maharashtra, Circle- B Yard, Pin-411006, S/o
Babu Rao of Undangaon Village, P.O. Undangaon, P.S. Aijanta, District
Aurangabad, Maharashtra.
... APPELLANT/ ACCUSED
-Versus-
The State of Manipur, represented by the Principal Secretary (Home), the
Government of Manipur, Imphal.
...RESPONDENTS
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.D. KRISHNAKUMAR AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
For the Appellant : Mrs. N. Elizabeth, Advocate [HCLSC]
For the Respondent : Mr. RK. Umakanta PP, Mr. W. Niranjit, DyGA
Date of Hearing : 06.02.2025
Date of Order : 21.05.2025
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 1
JUDGEMENT& ORDER [CAV]
A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA, (J):
[1] The present Criminal Appeal is filed under section 374(2), 382, 383 Cr.P.C.
1973, against the "impugned judgement" and order passed by the then Learned
Sessions Judge, Manipur West (now, Imphal West) on 24-6-2013 in Sessions
Trial Case No. 12 of 2010. Ref-FIR 1(02)2010 Henglep P.S. U/s 302 IPC by virtue
of which the Appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and
awarded imprisonment for life and the appellant was undergoing sentence in
Sajiwa Jail, Manipur, India. However, on application made by the appellant, he
was reciprocally transferred from Manipur to Maharastra State to serve out his
sentence in the Yerawada Central Prison, Pune-6, as he is the resident of
Undangaon Village P.O Undangaon, District Aurangabad in Maharashtra.
Fact of the case
[2] The Appellant Patel Rameshore Baburao was arrested by the Henglep
Police personnel on the charge of murdering his wife Sarla Patel. On 18-02-2010
on the information received from one Naik Subedar (JCO) Shiv Singh who lodged
a written report with OC Henglep PS stating that in the night of 17-2-2010 at
about 1.45 a.m. Rfn. No. G/5002428 AR, Patel Rameshore Baburao murdered
his wife Sarla Patel at the battalion family Quarter No.2 at Aina/Mulhoichin.
Charge Sheet was submitted by the Henglep PS, Churachanpur on 06-04-2010.
Prosecution have examined nine (9) witnesses. The learned Sessions Court in
case no. 12 of 2010 passed a judgment on 24-06-2013 where the appellant was
convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment.
[3] Being aggrieved the present Appellant, who is now lodged at Yerwada
Central Prison, Pune after shifting from Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa filed this
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 2
Criminal Appeal praying for setting aside and quashing the impugned Order
dated 24-06-2013 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West (now,
Imphal West) on 24-6- 2013 in Sessions Trial Case No. 12 of 2010, Ref-FIR
1(02)2010 Henglep P.S. U/s 302 IPC.
[4] Findings by the trial Court & Depositions:
(1) Complainant captain (Major) Amitesh Kashyap was examined as PW-1.
(A) He is the adjutant for the commandant of the 2nd AR Bn. Hg. at
Aina/Mulhoichin, Churachandpur District, Manipur at the relevant time
18/02/2010 at about 5.15 am, Naik Subedar.
(B) According to him (JCO) Shiv Singh informed him on internal telephone that
the accused Patel Rameshore Baburao killed his wife Sarla Patel in the family
quarter of the battalion Hq. He rushed immediately to the place and made
inquiries of the incident and learnt that the accused had killed his wife by
strangulating her to death at around 4 am in the morning of 18/02/2010. The
accused person was placed in the custody of the unit quarter guard. He informed
the police of Henglep PS about the incident through their rear JCO at
Churachandpur and also sent a written FIR-report. The said report is exhibited
as Ext-P/1. The police personnel of Henglep PS came to the place of Occurrence
at about 10 am and carried out spot inquiry and conducted inquest examination
over the death body in his presence. He has also stated that Sr. Medical officer
and Dy. Commandant Dr. Amand Swaroop certified that Mrs. Sarla Patel was
death and he forwarded the willingness certificate for the post mortem
examination of the death body and exhibited the same as Ext-PI2. He further
instructed the JCO to hand over the accused Patel Rameshore Baburao to the
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 3
Police. The police party took the dead body by vehicle of the AR and the accused
person was handed over to the police on the following day i.e. on 19/02/2010.
(2) Rifleman Mahapuro Manoj Shahaji was examined as PW-4.
(A) He has deposed that he knows the accused person Patel Rameshore Baburao
and his wife Sarla Patel. He further stated that he knew the accused person as
they were posted together at the Unit Hg. from 2007. According to him he stayed
at the Unit Hq. Family quarter No. 1 and the accused occupied Quarter No. 2
with his wife Sarla Patel and Riflenman Rajendra Singh (PW-6) occupied Quarter
No. 3 at the relevant time. On 17/02/2010 at about 8 pm he went to the quarter
of the accused person to give deer soup prepared by his wife to the accused
person and his wife. He found the accused person and his wife Sarla Patel having
their dinner together in the same plate. After giving them the soup he returned
to his quarter and went to sleep. On the next day i.e. on 18/02/2010 at about 4
am, his wife woke him up saying someone was knocking at their door. He went
and opened the door and found the accused Patel Rameshore Baburao standing
in front of their door with a white small rope tied around his neck. Seeing the
rope tied around his neck he asked what happened to him and why he had tied
the rope around his neck. Accused replied that he was going to kill himself by
hanging with the said rope. He then caught hold of the accused person and
asked him why he was going to do so. The accused told him to come inside his
quarter and would tell the reason. He went inside the quarter with the accused.
The accused person took him to his bed room near their bed. The accused
person opened the quilt (Rajai) on his bed, showed his wife and stated he had
killed his wife by the rope and remained crying. He further stated that on
opening the Rajai by the accused person, he found the wife of the accused Sarla
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 4
Patel motionless with her face upward and her hair pushing a bit upward. Her
left hand stretching down by the side of the bed. He also saw reddish small mark
around her neck and the tip of her tongue in between her lips and some blood
stain near her left nose tripe. He thought at the relevant time that Sarla Patel
had already died. Thereafter he came out holding the accused person. At the
relevant time, the accused person was murmuring he would like to kill himself
and tried to free himself from the witness. The witness than called out his wife
and told her to call out Rajendra Singh (PW-6) from his quarter. His wife then
called out Rajendra Singh (PW-6) from his quarter. In the meantime, he kept
holding the accused person. Rajendra (PW-6) came out of his quarter and asked
him what happened. He told Rajendra (PW-6) told that the accused had killed
his wife inside the quarter and the accused was trying to kill himself by hanging
and also told the PW- 6 that he had already removed the rope tied around the
neck of the accused. He also stated that the accused person kept on saying that
he would confess before their C.O. Saheb that he had killed his wife. So, he and
PW-6 took the accused person to the quarter of the C.O. Col. M.P. Colest
(Celestint) that they found the C.O. Saheb sleeping. Thereafter the accused
person stated that he would confess before the 2-i-C Saheb namely Major
Prasant Dixit. So they took him to the quarter of Major Dixit. On reaching the
quarter of Major Dixit, the accused person knocked on the door. Major Dixit
opened the door and the accused started talking to Major Dixit.
(B) Major Dixit 2-i-C then ordered them to leave the accused there. Then, they
left the quarter and returned to their quarters. On the way back, they met Naik
Subedar Shiv Singh who was coming for the morning physical training (PT) and
informed him that the accused Patel Rameshore Baburao had killed his wife.
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 5
(C) During his cross examination, he stated that the accused Patel Rameshore
Baburao was not keeping well in the previous two/three days from 17/02/2010
and had visited their unit doctor in one evening with him.
(D) He also stated that he found accused Patel having smell of liquor in his
breathe at the relevant time when he found him standing at his door. The
accused was not behaving normally by that time and the accused was not in his
usual normal sense and was talking irrelevantly which were not related to one
another. He also stated in his cross examination that there was no light inside
the quarter of the accused person when they entered inside and he had used a
torch light which he had brought and he saw the body of the deceased from
head to upper part of the chest and her hand, stretching down and the deceased
was wearing a Kameej having mixed colour of red and white.
(E) This witness is the only witness who had seen the accused Patel Rameshore
Baburao and his deceased wife Sarla Patel alive and together in the evening of
17/02/2010 at their quarter No. 2 at the battalion family quarter when he had
gone to give them deer soup. He is also the first person to have met the accused
person in the early morning of the following day i.e. 18/02/2010 after the
commission of the alleged crime.
(F) The evidence tendered by this witness could not be shaken in his cross
examination and no substantial material evidence could be extracted to create
any doubt in the credibility of the witness.
(3). Rajendra Singh was examined as PW-6.
(A) The evidence tendered by PW-4 is corroborated by PW-6 Rajendra Singh by
deposing that he occupied quarter No. 3 in the battalion family line along with
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 6
his wife at the relevant time. He further deposed that in the morning of
18/02/2010 at about 5.15 am, Smt Priyanka wife of Mahapuro Manoj Shahaji
(PW-4) called him out by shouting "Bhaiya - Bhaiya' and knocking on his door.
On opening the door, he found that Smt. Priyanka standing on the side of his
door and Mahapuro Manoj Shahaji (PW-4) holding accused Patil Baburao from
behind and the accused Patel Rameshore weeping. Mahapuro Manoj Shahaji
(PW-4) told him "Rameshore Patel ne inki bibi ko mara". He first thought that
the accused Rameshore Patel had beaten his wife. PW-4 then told him to take
the accused Rameshore, to the quarter guard.
(B) He (PW-6) and the PW-4 took the accused person holding the left and right
arm of the accused person towards the quarter guard. On their way, the accused
requested them to take him-to their Commanding Officer (CO) as the accused
person would like to speak to the CO Saheb. On reaching the quarter of the CO
Saheb, the accused person again requested them to take him to the quarter of
their 2-i-C namely Major Prasant Dixit. They then proceeded towards the quarter
of Major Dixit still holding the accused person by his arms side by side. After
proceeding for about 150 meters towards the quarter of Major Dixit, the accused
suddenly caught his throat by his right hand and told him that he had killed his
wife by strangulating with his hands in the manner he held the throat of the
witness. Thereafter, the accused ran towards the quarter of Major Dixit 2-i-C
very fact. They did not chase him but proceeded to the quarter of Jr. Adjutant
namely Naik Subedar Shiv Singh and informed him that Rameshore Datel had
killed his wife. Thereafter three of them, the Naik Subedar Shiv Singh, Mahapuro
Manoj Shahaji and he proceeded towards the quarter of their 2-i-C Major Dixit.
There they found the accused talking to Major Dixit. Then Major Dixit ordered
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 7
the Jr. Adjutant Shiv Singh to take the accused to the quarter guard and to keep
the accused in lock up.
(C) He further deposed that on 18/02/2010, in the afternoon, a police party
seized one cotton rope and one mobile hand set with charger from the family
line in the presence of Mahapuro Manoj Shahaji (PW-4) and himself, made a
seizure list i.e. Ext-P/6. During his cross examination, he stated that the accused
person was having smell of liquor in his breathe and found the accused behaving
differently from his earlier behaviour.
(D) The evidence of the two witnesses PW-4 and PW-6 corroborated each other
and there is no substantive material extracted in their cross examination to have
any substantial effect on the veracity and credibility of the two said witnesses.
The evidence tendered by the two witnesses supports the case of the
prosecution that the accused Patel Rameshore Baburao killed his wife by
strangulating. Both the witnesses have also deposed that the accused person
had smell of liquor in his breathe at the relevant time when they were holding
the accused person and that the accused was behaving abnormally.
(4). Subedar R.P. Passi was examined as PW-2.
PW-2, Subedar R.P. Passi was posted at the unit Hg. at the relevant time. He
had identified the dead body of the Sarla Patel to the police for inquest
examination. He also identified the dead body at the RIMS hospital for post
mortem examination.
(5). R.P. Jakhmola was examined as PW-3.
PW-3, Rifleman, R.P. Jakhmola was also posted at 2nd AR Bn. Unit Hq. at Aina
at the relevant time. According to him he was detailed for duty at family line
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 8
quarter No. 2 after the incident of murder of Sarla Patel. On 18/02/2010 at about
3.40 pm, police party of Henglep PS and carried out spot inspection and inquest
examination at the PO in his presence. He saw the dead body of the Sarla Patel
on the bed. The body was facing upwards with her head towards the north and
her legs towards the south. The body was found covered from neck to ankle by
Rajai'. He also saw some marks around her neck. He is also a witness on the
inquest report prepared by the police. He has also stated that the police party
photographs of the dead body. His statement is not shaken during cross-
examination.
(6). Khuptinlal Singson was examined as PW-8.
PW-8 Khuptinlal Singson was the OC in charge of Henglep PS at the relevant
time and the first IO of the case. He deposed that on 18/02/2010, at about 8.25
am, one Capt. Amitesh Kashyap (PW-1) of 20 AR Hq. Aina Mulhuichin made a
report in writing stating that one rifleman No. G/5002428 AR Patel Rameshore
Baburao had murdered his wife namely Sarla Patel at the Bn. family line quarter
at 2nd AR Aina Mulhuichin at about 1.45 in the intervening night of 17th and 18th
February 2010. The said report i.e. Ext-P/1 was registered as FIR Case No.
1(2)2010 Henglep PS u/s 302 IPC and he took up the investigation. On
18/02/2010, he visited the PO at about 3 pm and carried out inspection of the
PO. He found the dead body of the deceased Sarla Patel lying on her bed
covered by a chadar. He removed the chadar and carried out inspection of the
dead body. He found blood coming out from the nose of the dead body and also
found scare mark of rope on the throat and neck of the dead body. The body
was lying facing upwards. The dead body was wearing cotton salwar red and
white strip colour and a tericotton pajama and was wearing a Mangal sutra on
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 9
her neck. There was a Sindur mark on her forehead. The dead body was wearing
3 bangles made of plastic on her left hand and 2 bangles on her right hand. The
dead body was also wearing one payal silver on each leg. He also seized the
following articles: (i) one folded cotton rope about six ft. length (i) one mobile
phone Maxx-463 with ear phone and charger in presence PW-4 and PW-6.
He further stated that the post mortem over the dead body was conducted at
RIMS Morgue. He also stated that during the course of spot inspection, he
prepared sketch map of the PO with index i.e. Ext-PI7 and Ext-P/8. He has also
stated that during the spot inspection, on police personnel in his team also took
photographs at the PO by mobile phone handset ie. Ext-P/9 to P/18, He also
exhibited the relevant challan for conducting inquest over the dead body as Ext-
P/4. He had also filled up the PM report form and exhibited the same as Ext-
P/5. He also exhibited inquest report as Ext-P/3. He also stated that he had
seized scalp hair and blood sample of the deceased on production by the doctor
PW-7. Ext-MO/4 is the scalp hair and Ext-MO/5 is the blood sample. He had also
exhibited FIR form prepared by him as Ext-P/19. He had also stated that after
the post mortem examination of the dead body, the dead body was handed over
to the AR authority under a handing over and taking over certificate i.e. Ext-
P/20. During the cross examination, no substantive material could be extracted
from the witness that could create any doubt in connection with the investigation
of the case.
(7). Khuplen Lhoubum was examined as PW-9
PW-9, Khuplen Lhoubum is the SDPO posted at Thanglon at the relevant time.
He took over the investigation of the present case from PW- 8 and conducted
further investigation. According to him, he made a prayer before the Court of
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 10
CJM, Bishnupur for recording the statement of the accused u/s 164 CrPC and
was recorded by the Ld. CJM, Bishnupur on 24/02/2010. After completion of the
investigation, he submitted the relevant charge sheet i.e. Ext-P/2. During his
cross examination also no substantive material could be extracted from him to
create any adverse inference against the investigation carried out by him.
(8). MEDICAL EVIDENCE (Dr. Kh. Pradeepkumar was examined as PW-7)
PW-7, Dr. Kh. Pradeepkumar of the Department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS,
Imphal cum Police Surgeon, Govt. of Manipur conducted the PM examination
over the dead body on 19/02/2010 at about 3 pm and is of the opinion that the
death was due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation by ligature. Homicidal in
nature and the time since death was 24-48 hours.
(9). CONFESSION OF THE ACCUSED
Confessional statement of the accused Patel Rameshore Baburao recorded
under Section 164 CrPC by Ld. CJM, Bishnupur on 24/02/2010 is exhibited as
Ext-P/22. Before recording the statement, the Ld. CJM, Bishnupur had explained
to the accused that he was not bound to make the confessional statement and
if he made the confessional statement, it would be used against him as evidence
during the trial. The Ld. CJM, Bishnupur had further asked the accused if the
accused was willing to give his confessional statement and the accused was
given one hour time for reflection. The accused answered that he was willing to
give statement on that day itself. Accordingly, the confessional statement of the
accused was recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the Ld. CJM, Bishnupur.
The accused, in his confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC stated that
he heard his wife Sarla Patel called out the name of one "Tarsem" three times
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 11
in her dream (sleep) and he got surprise and thought how his wife came to
know this name but he did not tell her anything about it. But on 17/02/2010, he
asked his wife whether she had any relationship with Tarsem. She replied that
she had relationship with him (Tarsem) and had intercourse with him. He then
told her that how she committed such things in spite of his very deep love for
her. He thereafter told his wife to forget about it and to consider it asked her to
sleep.
Thereafter his stomach turned upside down and was trembling all over his body
and his heart was beating like anything. Then he went to the bath room and
splashed water and tried to cool down. He was so upset that he could not control
his anger and feelings. In this fit of moment, he killed his wife by strangulating
by a rope by his own his hand. Thereafter he could not control his feeling and
to control it he took liquor kept in his quarter and had consumed a lot.
[5] The accused Patel Rameshore Baburao was examined under Section 313
CrPC and in his examination he stated that he did not know anything and also
did not remember anything as he was totally under the influence of liquor. When
he regained consciousness, he found himself inside the lock up of the quarter
guard.
[6] The Learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West observes that the confessional
statement of the accused Patel Rameshore Baburao also supports the case of
the prosecution. It was held that the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-8
confirmed the existence of the injury mark around the neck of the dead body of
Sarla Patel and the medical evidences and the opinion of PW-7: Dr.
Pradeepkumar established that the death was due to strangulation. It was
further held that the depositions of PW-4 and PW-6 established the
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 12
circumstances and inferences that the accused killed his wife by strangulation
and the accused and deceased were seen last togather. There is no material
evidence that creates any doubt let alone reasonable doubt in reaching the
conclusion that accused Patel Rameshore Baburao had killed his wife Sarla Patel
in between the night of 17/02/2010 and 18/02/2010 inside their quarter No. 2
of the Family line of the 2nd AR Bn. Hg. at Aina/Mulhoichin.
[7] In the conclusion, the evidence on records convincingly points to the only
possible conclusion that the accused namely Patel Rameshore Baburao,
Rifleman No. G/5002428 ARM(GD) 21d AR AinalMulhoichin, Churachandpur,
resident of Undangaon Village, PO Undagaon, PS Aijanta, District Aurangbad,
Maharastra, son of Patel Baburao had murdered his wife Sarla Patel by
strangulation in the night between 17th and 18th of February, 2010. Accordingly,
accused Patel Rameshore Baburao was convicted for the offence under section
302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
[8] We have heard Mrs. N. Elizabeth, learned counsel for the Appellant as a
panel advocate appointed by High Court Legal Services Committee and Mr. RK.
Umakanta, learned Senior Counsel and Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
[9] The provision of relevant sections are reproduced here for reference:
Section 300, IPC defines Murder. It reads as follows:
"Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,
if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or--
(Secondly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to
whom the harm is caused, or--
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 13
(Thirdly)-- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any
person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
(Fourthly)-- If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid."
"Exception 1.-- When culpable homicide is not murder.-- Culpable
homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of
self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the
person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other
person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the
following provisos:--
(First)-- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by
the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
(Secondly)-- That the provocation is not given by anything done in
obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the
powers of such public servant.
(Thirdly)-- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the
lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation.-- Whether
the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence
from amounting to murder is a question of fact."
Section 302, IPC provided Punishment for murder.--
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment
for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 304, IPC provided Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.--
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 14
intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death;
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to
cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Section 235, CrPC provided judgment of acquittal or conviction -
1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall
give a judgment in the case.
2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in
accordance with the provisions of section 360 hear the accused on the
question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.
Section 313, CrPC provided Power to examine the accused-
(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused
personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him, the Court--
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such
questions to him as the Court considers necessary;
b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined
and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on
the case:
Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with
the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his
examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined
under sub-section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing
to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration
in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any
other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may
tend to show he has committed.
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 15
[(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in
preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the
Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient
compliance of this section.]
[10] The impugned judgment and order is challenged amongst on the
following grounds:
A) The Hon'ble Judge has erred both in law and in facts while convicting
the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C.
B) The entire judgement is based on conjectures and surmises and
deserves to be quashed and set aside and/or alter if Hon'ble Court
concludes otherwise.
C) The Learned Judge ought to have appreciated that in absence of
evidence of eye-witnesses, there is nothing whatsoever on record to prove
the over act of the appellant.
D) It ought to have been looked into by the Hon'ble lower Court that there
was no motive for the Appellant to kill and commit the murder of Sarla i.e
deceased wife of appellant.
E) The judgement and order passed by the Hon'ble Session Judge is bad
in law and without application of mind. The impugned judgement and
order of conviction is also without having any substantial and cogent
evidence against the appellant and thereto the same is deserved to be set
aside or alter or modified into sec 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
F) The Trial Court has erred in holding that the death was due to acts of
the appellant Rameshore. The prosecution story which led the accused to
commit the offence because of an alleged "dream" of the victim wife Sarla
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 16
Patel is one invented by it, not acceptable even by any stretch of
imagination. The confessional statement recorded just on the date of
production of the accused in their custody without affording enough or
sufficient time for reflection is quite "illegal" arbitrary and not to be acted
upon in support of the prosecution case. Non examination of Naik Subedar
(JCO) Shiv Singh on whose internal telephonic information received by
P.W. 1, Captain Mayor Amitesh Kashyap lodge the written report Ext. P/1
has cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case or the story of murder
of the victim Sarla Patel by her husband the accused in the manner
invented by the Police. Para 31 and 32 of the impugned judgement have
unfolded the clear case of misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the
prosecution case or on the falsity/improbability of the prosecution story in
that theory of "dream" of wife has been invented and taking of liquor after
the crime making the accused not knowing anything have completely
misplaced the prosecution theory. Sections 233 and 234 Cr. P.C. meant
for affording opportunity for defence evidence and even for giving
statement of accused as D.W. have been violated causing of justice and
prejudice to the accused. Not as a matter of insisting on imposition of
death sentence, sentence hearing ought to have been made before the
impugned judgement and order was passed, and by the absence of
sentence hearing, pre determination of mind of the trial judge to award
life Imprisonment on the accused vitiates the trial as well as the impugned
order/judgement.
G) That, trial Court ought not to have believed the evidence of the
witnesses in the absence of consistency. The evidence regarding physical
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 17
assault is neither cogent nor reliable strangulation is not seen by any
witness there is no ocular or eye witness to the alleged incident.
H) There is nothing on record to show that this Appellant strangulated or
hanged Sarla Patel and the statement of the witnesses have been
recorded after inordinate delay though they were available to the police
as such the reasoning of the trial court is based on conjectures and
surmise as the confession made by Appellant when he was in police
custody without any evidentiary value before trial court because in the
disturbed state of mind and under pressure of police machinery, the
Appellant had made the statement under section 164 of Criminal
Procedure Code. As such Ld. Trial Court has wrongly held that the
evidence of the Appellant accused has been proved that also without
calling upon him to adduce evidence u/s 233(1) & 313(1)(b) Cr. P.C. 1973.
I) The Appellant has not committed any offence and there is no evidence
on record to prove the guilt and therefore the order and judgement of
conviction deserves to be set aside.
J) The prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable
doubts and the Ld. Judge erred in convicting the Appellant under section
302 of IPC. The Ld. Judge has misinterpreted the evidence on record and
wrongly came to the conclusion that the Appellant has committed the
offence under section 302 of IPC.
K) The Ld. Judge has not followed proper procedure of law and acted just
mechanically thereby convicting Appellant while recording confession
under section 164 of Cr.P.C. as well as under section 313 when statement
of accused was recorded.
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 18
L) The Ld. Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of section 302 of IPC.
The findings, observations and reasons for convicting the Appellant are
based on Surmises, conjectures and without there being any evidence to
that effect the Ld. Judge relied on the confessional statement of Accused
which was under pressure and in the disturbed state of mind. The
Appellant has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
M)The judgement and impugned conviction order of the Ld. Judge is
illegal and bad in the eyes of law.
N) The Ld. Judge misinterpreted the evidence and failed to appreciate
that police had not followed proper procedure of law when investigation
was going on. The impugned judgement and order is otherwise
unwarranted and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
O) The Ld. Sessions Judge ought to have shown leniency on the ground
that the Appellant is army servant and only earning member of his family
and the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not cogent and
sufficient to prove the guilt of the Appellant.
P) The evidence of prosecution witness is not reliable. There are material
improbabilities, contradictions and omissions as well| as inconsistencies in
the evidence of the witnesses. The theory of the "dream" of the victim
wife with name of one 'Tarsem' is being called out by her while sleeping
has been fabricated and invented by the prosecution without any
probability in the normal course of human being but making it a
source/ground for Committing the offence by the accused and also with
no effort of Police hunt out/trace any one to be connected with or involved
in the murder of the victim woman.
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 19
Q) This Appellant was taking medicines and he was under observations of
experts when he was in jail and even in the under trial period. Due to
psychomotor disturbances, he was referred by Hospital officials of jail of
Sajiwa to Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences and Hospital,
Porompat, Imphal East, 795005, Manipur, India being Reg. No. REC -
210316-66408 Ticket No. M.R. 210316 -51898 Department of Psychiatry,
Bearing No. PSYCHIATRIC-Room No, 105 1st Floor. The paper for
treatment given are available in the concern Sajiwa jail Hospital. Some
papers of treatment given are attached here with for the kind
consideration of Hon'ble Court. It clearly shows that Appellant was not
mentally fit and oriented at the time of confessions recorded under section
164 Cr.P.C. And any offence might have been committed under influence
or in disturbed mental condition is not crime in the eye of law. Insane
person can do any act without sense and no any thoughtfulness is
expected from mental or psychiatric patient.
R) The confessional statement recorded is not the support or backbone
of the prosecution story as appellant was not common or ordinary human
being at that time. It is medically proved by treatment papers which are
on record and attached herewith for ready reference of Hon'ble High Court
and the same may please be considered.
S) Prosecution witness P.W. 2, R.P. Passi, P.WN.4 M.Shahaji, P.W. 5
Tarsom Kumar and P.W. 7, K. Pradipkumar are not supporting prosecution
story. There are so many contradictions and omissions.
[11] Mrs. N. Elizabeth, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the
judgment passed by the trial Court suffers from perversity as no opportunity of
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 20
being heard was granted to the accused on sentence. A consolidated common
judgment of conviction and sentence was passed. It is submitted that the
conviction is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
[12] Learned counsel for the appellant raises doubt about the admissibility of
the confession and conviction based on circumstances evidence with the aid of
confessional statement of the accused. It is pointed out that the chain of events
are not connected and there are many loose ends. There are contradictions
between the depositions of PW-4 and PW-6. It is stated that the mark of
strangulation cannot be attributed to the accused in absence of any forensic
evidence. PW-5: Tarsemkumar who was alleged to have illicit relationship with
the deceased, denied the allegation and thereby demolishing the motive on the
part of the accused to kill his wife. Learned counsel further submits that no
opportunity was granted to the accused to lead defence evidence thereby
causing prejudice to him. It is urged that the accused be acquitted from the
conviction under Section 302 IPC, or in alternation, at most, the case would fall
under Section 304-A IPC.
[13] Mrs. N. Elizabeth, Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to the
following case law to substantiate her submissions:
i. N. Pishak Singh vs State of Manipur [2005(4)GLT720]
Para9. In our present case, at the time of examination after closure of
the prosecution evidence, the accused appellant is found to have stated
that he was having defence to be made and that he was having defence
witness to be produced. At no stage, the defence counsel is found to
have stated about having no defence witness to be produced. At the
stage of proceeding u/s 232 Cr.P.C. the trial Court straightway passed
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 21
the impugned judgment and order convicting the accused appellant for
the commission of the said offences. We are convinced that the failure
on the part of the trial Court to call upon the accused appellant to enter
on his defence has caused prejudice to him in his defence.
The learned Addl. P.P. fails to show that the trial Judge complied with
the requirement of Section 233 of the Cr.P.C. nor can she show that
there are materials on record to indicate that no prejudice has been
caused to the accused appellant.
ii. Muthuswami vs State of Madras [A.I.R 1954
S.C.4(Vol.41.C.N.2)]
Para8. The only reason the High Court give for accepting the confession
is because the learned Judges considered there was intrinsic material to
indicate the genuineness. But the only feature the learned Judges specify
is that it contains a wealth of detail which could not have been invented.
But the point overlooked is that none of this detail has been tested. The
confession is a long and rambling one which could have been invented
by an agile mind or pieced together after tutoring. What would have
been difficult is to have set out a true set of facts in that manner. But
unless the main features of the story are shown to be true, it is, in our
opinion, unsafe to regard mere wealth of uncorroborated detail as a
safeguard of truth.
Para9. For the reasons given above, we allow the appeal, set aside the
conviction and acquit the appellant.
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 22
[14] Per contra, Mr. RK Umakanta, learned PP submits that there is no
irregularity in the proceeding before the trial Court. It is clarified that judgment
of conviction and sentence can be passed on the same day. In the present case,
minimum sentence of life imprisonment was awarded by the trial Court in the
same judgment of conviction under Section 302 IPC. Conviction cannot be
faulted on this ground alone, as the accused is bound to get minimum sentence
of life imprisonment.
[15] Learned PP submits that the accused cannot point out any infirmity in
the admissibility of his confessional statement and the same can safely be relied
along with other incriminating materials and circumstances to arrive a verdict of
conviction. In his confession, the accused admitted killing his wife and then
taking liquor later on and as such he cannot claim benefit under due influence
of alcohol. It is also pointed out that accused did not take opportunity given to
him for leading defence witness during examination u/s 313 CrPC. It is prayed
that the appeal be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
[16] Learned PP cites the following case laws to augment his argument.
1. (2001) 5 SCC 235 (3 Judges Bench) (PARA-11,12,13,14,18 &
26): Lokeman Shah -Vs - State of West Bengal.
It is within the radius of permissibility that court can rely on a factual
presumption for the purpose of reaching one conclusion. Thus, the
confessional statement, if admissible and reliable, can be used by the
court for drawing inferences as to whether the confessor shared the
common object with the rest of the members of the unlawful assembly.
For that purpose the court will take into account other materials available
in evidence. There is no warrant for the proposition that the court cannot
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 23
proceed from the confession even a wee bit for the purpose of knowing
whether the confessor had entertained any particular intention while
perpetrating the acts admitted by him in his confession. Whether such
intention could have focussed on the common object of the unlawful
assembly to which he joined depends upon other facts.
2. (2020) 5 SCC 782 (3 Judges Bench) (PARA-23,24,25,26,27,28
& 29) Manoharan - Vs - State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall
Police Station, Coimbatore.
A retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the
court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. But it has
been held that a court shall not base a conviction on such a confession
without corroboration. It is not a Rule of law, but is only a Rule of
prudence. It cannot even be laid down as an inflexible Rule of practice
or prudence that under no circumstances such a conviction can be made
without corroboration, for a court may, in a particular case, be convinced
of the absolute truth of a confession and prepared to act upon it without
corroboration; but it may be laid down as a general Rule of practice that
it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less on a retracted
confession, unless the court is satisfied that the retracted confession is
true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material
particulars.
3. (2019) 7SCC 1 (3 Judges Bench) (PARA-34,36,37 & 40)
Accused X -Vs - State of Maharastra.
We are of the opinion that as long as the spirit and purpose of Section
235(2) is met, inasmuch as the Accused is afforded a real and effective
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 24
opportunity to plead his case with respect to sentencing, whether simply
by way of oral submissions or by also bringing pertinent material on
record, there is no bar on the pre-sentencing hearing taking place on the
same day as the pre-conviction hearing. Depending on the facts and
circumstances, a separate date may be required for hearing on sentence,
but it is equally permissible to argue on the question of sentence on the
same day if the parties wish to do so.
4. (2020) 4 SCC 451 (3 Judges Bench) (PARA-27.1 & 27.2)
Manoj Suryavanshi -Vs - State of Chhattisgarh.
There is no absolute proposition of law that in no case there can be
conviction and sentence on the same day. There is no absolute
proposition of law laid down by this court in any of the decision that if
the sentence is awarded on the very same day on which the conviction
was recorded, the sentencing would be vitiated.
5. (1997) 6 SCC 162(PARA 14): State of Rajasthan -Vs -
Hani@Hanif.
We are of the view that the discrepancy regarding the time of recording
First Information Statement, on the facts of this case, is not enough to
castigate the testimony of an important eye witness, whose presence at
the spot cannot in any way be doubted. The maximum consequence
which such discrepancy may visit, on the facts of this case, is that the
First Information Statement cannot be used to corroborate the evidence
of the maker of it.
6.(1955) 2 SCC 934/ AIR 1955 SC 196 (3 Judges Bench) (PARA-
13)HN. Rishbud -Vs - State of Delhi.
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 25
It does not follow, however, that the invalidity of the investigation is to
be completely ignored by the Court during trial. When the breach of such
a mandatory provision is brought to the knowledge of the Court at a
sufficiently early stage, the Court, while not declining cognizance, will
have to take the necessary steps to get the illegality cured and the defect
rectified, by ordering such reinvestigation as the circumstances of an
individual case may call for.
7.(2001)5 SCC 714 (3 Judges Bench) (Para-24,26, 27, 28,30 31
& 33) Ramdeo Chauhan -Vs - State of Assam.
We are satisfied that the present case is an exceptional case which
warrants the awarding of maximum penalty under the law to the
accused/appellant. The crime committed by the appellant is not only
shocking but it has also jeopardised the society. The awarding of lesser
sentence only on the ground of the appellant being a youth at the time
of occurrence cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance in view
of our findings that the murders committed by him were most cruel,
heinous and dastardly. We have no doubt that the present case is the
rarest of the rare requiring the maximum penalty, imposable under law."
8.(1977)3 SCC 218 (Para-3): Tarlok Singh -Vs - State of Punjab.
In this case it is admitted that no opportunity was given under Section
235(2), Cr.P.C. to the appellant to show cause as to why the lesser
sentence of life imprisonment should not be inflicted. We may make it
absolutely clear that such a failure will not affect the conviction under
any circumstances. The only point is relevant to sentence. Even there in
a murder case where the charge of murder is made out, the limited
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 26
question is as between the two sentences prescribed under the Penal
Code.
9.(2019) 4 SCC 125 (Para-8)
State of Madhya Pradesh -Vs - Vikram Das.
In view of aforesaid judgments that where minimum sentence is
provided for, the Court cannot impose less than the minimum sentence.
It is also held that provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be
resorted to impose sentence less than the minimum sentence.
10.(2003) 7SCC 258 (Para-12, 13 & 14)
Gurdev Singh -Vs - State of Punjab.
It was held that the mandate of the legislature is clear that no
adjournment can be granted for the purpose only of enabling the
accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be
imposed upon him. Nonetheless, the Court can in appropriate cases
grant adjournment for the aforesaid purpose, if the proposed sentence
is a sentence of death. From the material on record, it does not appear
that any request was made to the learned Sessions Judge for
adjournment. In the circumstances, we see no substance in the
contention that the sentence imposed was vitiated for non-compliance
with Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
11.(2004) 10 SCC 192 (Para - 11, 12 & 13)
Kamalakar Nandram Bhavsar -Vs - State of Maharastra.
"The fact that Supreme Court in Santa Singh case MANU/SC/0167/1976
: 1976CriLJ1875 remanded the matter to the Sessions Court does not
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 27
spell out the ratio of the judgment to be that in every such case there
has to be a remand but the remand is an exception, not the rule and
ought, therefore, to be avoided as far as possible in the interest of
expeditious though fair, disposal of cases."
12. (2004) 10 SCC 192 (3 Judges Bench) (Para 11)
Prahlad vs State of Rajasthan.
We find that there is ample material against the Accused to convict him
for the offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. All the
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution stand proved so as to
complete the chain of circumstances in respect of the offence Under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court and the High Court
are, on facts, justified in convicting the Accused for the offence Under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, we are unable to find
reliable material against the Accused for the offences Under Section 3
and 4 of the POCSO Act.
[17] We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned PP for
the State and perused the materials on record and relevant law in this regard.
[18] The learned Sessions Judge, Manipur West (now, Imphal West) convicted
the accused under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife based on the
circumstances evidence, the confession made by the accused and medical
opinion. The main ground for challenge is the passing of common judgment of
conviction and sentence of life imprisonment on the same day without proving
any opportunity of being heard on sentence. Other grounds are missing links in
the chain of events, doubting the admissibility of confession, absence of motive
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 28
and so on. Alternate ground is accidental death not amounting to culpable
homicide.
[19] The provisions of Section 235(2) and Section 313(1)(b) of CrPC provide
for hearing the accused on sentence and leading of defence evidence. However,
in the present case, the accused did not exercise the option of leading defence
evidence in spite of offering such opportunity. On perusal of the case record,
there is no evidence of separate proceeding of hearing on sentence and accused
was directly awarded life imprisonment in the same judgment of conviction.
Even though such a practice of a departure from the norm prescribed by statute,
no prejudice is caused to the accused as minimum sentence of life imprisonment
for murder was awarded by the trial court. As such, the conviction and sentence
cannot be faulted on this limited ground.
[20] Accused cannot substantiate any cogent reason for disbelieving the
confession and other chain of events. We are of the view that there cannot be
a complete acquittal of the accused.
[21] Now, we are examining whether the circumstances considered by the
trial Court are sufficient to return a verdict of murder under Section 302 IPC.
[22] From the confession of the accused [Ext.P-22], it is clear that he killed
his wife by strangulation due to grave and sudden provocation on coming to
know about the illicit affair of his wife with one Tarsem Kumar [PW-5]. The trial
Court has accepted the admissibility of the confession. In the circumstances, we
are of the view that the present case falls within first exception to Section 300
IPC that culpable homicide is not murder, if the offence has been committed
due to grave and sudden provocation depriving self-control.
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 29
[23] In Pravin Khimji Chouhan v. State of Maharashtra,
MANU/MH/0466/2022, the Bombay High Court observed that although the
act was brutal, it was not premediated. The accused acted in a sudden fit of
rage, and this absence of prior planning was a significant factor in reducing the
conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
[24] In Hansa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1801, the
accused/appellant, upon witnessing one G committing an act of sodomy on his
minor son, lost self control and, in a state of emotional disturbance, inflicted a
fatal assault on G. Although initially convicted under section 302, IPC, the Honble
Supreme Court held that the act was committed under grave and sudden
provocation. Consequently, the conviction was altered to one under under
section 304 part II of the IPC. Their Lordships observed as under :
"We, however, feel that the occurrence took place while the deceased
was committing sodomy on Haria and that gave such a sudden and grave
provocation and annoyance to the appellant which impelled him to
assault the deceased. For these reasons we are satisfied that the case
of the appellant falls clearly within the purview of Section 304, Part II of
the Indian Penal Code. The appellant on seeing the deceased committing
the act of sodomy on his son, lost his power and self-control and it was
undoubtedly a grave and sudden provocation for him which led him to
commit the murderous assault on the deceased."
[25] In the case of Jagriti Devi v. State of H.P.: (2009) 14 SCC 771,
Hon'ble Apex Court analysed the thin distinction between culpable homicide and
murder. Relevant para are reproduced below for a clear understanding.
"26. Section 299 and Section 300 IPC deal with the definition of "culpable
homicide" and "murder" respectively. Section 299 defines "culpable
homicide" as the act of causing death:
(i) with the intention of causing death, or
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 30
(ii) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, or
(iii) with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death.
A bare reading of the section makes it crystal clear that the first and the
second clauses of the section refer to intention apart from the knowledge
and the third clause refers to knowledge alone and not intention. Both
the expressions "intent" and "knowledge" postulate the existence of a
positive mental attitude which is of different degrees. The mental
element in culpable homicide i.e. mental attitude towards the
consequences of conduct is one of intention and knowledge. If that is
caused in any of the aforesaid three circumstances, the offence of
culpable homicide is said to have been committed.
27. Section 300 IPC, however, deals with murder although there is no
clear definition of murder provided in Section 300 IPC. It has been
repeatedly held by this Court that culpable homicide is the genus and
murder is species and that all murders are culpable homicide but not vice
versa.
28. Section 300 IPC further provides for the exceptions which will
constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder and punishable
under Section 304. When and if there is intent and knowledge, then the
same would be a case of Section 304 Part I and if it is only a case of
knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then
the same would be a case of Section 304 Part II. The aforesaid distinction
between an act amounting to murder and an act not amounting to
murder has been brought out in the numerous decisions of this Court.
29. In State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya*1 this Court observed as
follows at p. 386 : (SCC para 12)
"12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus
and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not
vice versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans 'special
characteristics of murder', is 'culpable homicide not amounting to
murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the
gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three
degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called,
'culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the greatest form of
culpable homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder'. The
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 31
second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'.
This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. Then, there
is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of
culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the
lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades.
Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second
part of Section 304."
*1. (1976) 4 SCC 382 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 659
[26] In the case of Camilo Vaz v. State of Goa: (2000) 9 SCC 1, Hon'ble
Supreme Court explains the provisions of Section 304 IPC and relevant para is
reproduced below:
"14. This section is in two parts. If analysed, the section provides for two
kinds of punishment to two different situations: (1) if the act by which
death is caused is done with the intention of causing death or causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Here the important
ingredient is the "intention"; (2) if the act is done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death
or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. When a person hits
another with a danda on a vital part of the body with such force that the
person hit meets his death, knowledge has to be imputed to the accused.
In that situation the case will fall in Part II of Section 304 IPC as in the
present case. We are also not oblivious of the fact that the other four
accused who were similarly convicted with the appellant with the aid of
Section 149 IPC have been held guilty only for offence under Section 326
IPC."
[27] In the case of Kundan Singh v. Delhi Admn.: (1975) 3 SCC 822,
the fact is the deceased was having illicit relations with her paramour even
during the life time of her late husband and the accused, the relatives of the
widow were very resentful towards her. On the day of occurrence, the accused
beat up the deceased till she died. It was held that there was apparently a
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 32
common intention on their part to give a beating and they must have had the
knowledge or likelihood of causing the death through the beating. The conviction
under Section 302/34 IPC was altered to the one under Section 304, Part II/34
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period of 5 years that already
spent in custody.
[28] In the case of Asha Gopal (1987) Unrep Cr C 932, Bombay High
Court observed that no higher provocation can be given than that of finding a
man's wife in actual intercourse with a paramour, and death caused under such
circumstances must be visited with a very light sentence and imposed 6 months'
rigorous imprisonment for death caused due to such provocation.
[29] We are of the view that the present case falls under Section 304, Part
II IPC as illicit relationship of the deceased wife with someone can be treated
as a grave provocation to the husband and anything happened due to loss of
self-control would not fall within the definition of murder. The accused had no
intention of causing injury to the wife which would likely to cause death in
normal circumstance. His mental condition can be perceived from the contents
of his confession and the deposition of PW-4.
[30] Accordingly, we alter the conviction under Section 302 IPC to the one
under Section 304, Part II IPC, i.e., culpable homicide not amounting to murder
and reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment of 10
years. The accused is in custody since his arrest on 19.12.2010 and he has spent
almost 15 years in custody. In the circumstances, his sentence is set off against
the period already undergone in terms of the mandate of the provisions of
Section 428 CrPC. Since the appellant has spent more than duration of the
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 33
altered sentence of 10 years, he is directed to be released from detention
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
[31] The appeal is partly allowed. Return the case record along with a copy
of this judgment to the successor court, i.e., learned Sessions Judge, Imphal
West.
[32] Send a copy of this order to the Superintendent, Yerawada Central
Prison, Pune-6 for information and necessary action. Send another copy of this
order to the Superintendent, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa for information.
[33] We appreciate the contribution of Mrs. N. Elizabeth, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant as a panel lawyer for HCLSC.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
suchitra
KH. Digitally signed by
KH. JOSHUA
JOSHUA MARING
Date: 2025.05.21
MARING 13:07:07 +05'30'
CRL. APPL. NO. 12 OF 2017: PATEL RAMESHORE BABURAO V. STATE OF MANIPUR 34
