Listen to this articleJugut
Ram v The State of Chhattisgarh
Criminal
Appeal no. 616 of 2020
Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No.7416 of 2018, decided on 16 September 2020
Bench: R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, Indira
Banerjee, JJ.
Relevant Provisions of Law: Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Facts:
The present appeal
was filed against conviction under
Section 302 IPC which had been upheld by the High Court as well as Session
Court. As per the record of the present case, there existed a civil
land dispute between the parties, the assault took place while the deceased was
harvesting his crops. The appellant assaulted him with a lathi on the head and the deceased expired
in the hospital the next day.
Issue:
Whether the conviction under S.302 IPC is justified?
Held:
The Court altered the
conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II, IPC because
on appreciation
of evidence, the Court came to the conclusion that the assault was not
premeditated but had taken place in a heat
of passion due to a land dispute, if the appellant
had the intention
View of Court on
lathi blow
The Supreme Court pointed out that an
assault on the head with a lathi is always a question fact in each case, whether
there was intention to cause death or only knowledge that death was likely to
occur. Relying on the facts and precedent set in the case of Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCC 635, wherein
the deceased had succumbed to his injury 3 days after the assault and that the
assault was made on the spur of the moment without premeditation, the
conviction was altered from one under Section 302 to Section 304 Part II and a sentence
of seven years was handed, and, that of Mohd. Shakeel vs.
State of A.P., (2007) 3 SCC 119, where, under similar circumstances,
the conviction was altered and the appellant was sentenced to the period
undergone since 1999. The court altered the conviction of appellant from Section
302 IPC to Section 304 Part II, IPC and directed that the appellant was to be
set at liberty.