The division judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha of the apex court in the case of Chherturam @ Chainu Vs State of Chhattisgarh upheld the conviction of a man accused of killing his own father after a fight while under the influence of alcohol.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant and his father were drinking alcohol together and suddenly a fight took place between them. Further, Chamruram, who is a neighbor, on reaching their house found the appellant assaulting his father, Goienda, the deceased, with Nagar Wood. Thereafter, the trial court convicted the appellant under section 302 of the Indian penal code and the appeal was filed before the Chhattisgarh high court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the incident took place under the influence of alcohol and there was no motivation and intention, which clearly depicts that the essential ingredients of section 300 of IPC were absent. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 of IPC was erroneous.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the testimonies of witnesses have established the crime. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment tilted Surain Singh v. State of Punjab to make out a case under exception 4 of section 300 of the IPC. To establish a case under the aforementioned Exception 4, it was pleaded that two essential ingredients were present: (i) the accused did not act with premeditation, and (ii) the accused did not act in a cruel or brutal manner taking advantage of the situation. As a result, the nature of the injuries is an important factor in determining whether the death was the result of a sudden fight. Further, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment titled Manokaran v. State of T.N.
The learned counsel also made reference to section 86 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted that merely because the appellant and the deceased had consumed liquor together, full knowledge is liable to be attributed to the appellant. It was also contended that the after looking at the nature of injuries caused, the conviction of the appellant was liable to be sustained under Section 302 of the IPC.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court stated that no doubt, the parties were closely related and there was no prior dispute. Liquor got the better of the appellant. That, however, is no defence in view of Section 86 of the IPC.
The apex court further held that it is clearly a case of mercilessly beating on all the vital parts of the body and reigning blows, albeit with a wood piece, on the head and on different parts of the head again and again. With these kinds of blows, there would be no possibility of the deceased surviving. Maybe it was under the influence of liquor, but the nature of blows was such that the endeavor was to end the life of the deceased, the father. It was certainly an act in a cruel and brutal manner taking advantage of the situation even if there was no pre-meditation.
Sympathy for the son in such a scenario would be misplaced. The victim was the father. The appellant must take the consequences of such a merciless attack on his father. There is no cause made out for the application of Exception 4 of Section 300. The apex court released the appellant as per the remission policy.
CASE NAME- Chherturam @ Chainu Vs State of Chhattisgarh
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1317 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
DATED-13.09.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
