Listen to this articleKHOKAN @ KHOKHAN VISHWAS
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2021, Decided On February
11, 2021
JUDGES: DR.DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND M.R. SHAH.
Facts: The facts in brief according to the prosecution
story were that, on 08.08.2006 at about 6:30 p.m., the deceased was in the
house of his neighbour Devan. At that very time, the Khokan (“accused”) had a
quarrel with him regarding money and due to this the accused pushed the
deceased down and stood up on his abdomen and crushed. On the very next day,
the deceased got admitted in N.M.D.C. Apollo Central Hospital, Bacheli for
treatment as he was experiencing severe abdominal pain subsequently, he was
referred to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur for treatment. During treatment, the
deceased died on 11.08.2006.
As per the post mortem
report conducted by Dr.(Smt.) J. Gupta (PW-3) the cause of death of the
deceased was shock as a result of septicemia caused by injuries in small
intestine. The Trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 302 IPC after observing and finding that the case would fall
under Section 300 IPC and that the murder of Manku Ram committed by the accused
does not come under the fourth exception of Section 300 IPC. Accordingly, after
holding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC,
the Trial Court awarded life sentence to the accused. The same was confirmed by
the High Court.
Thereafter, being
aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the High Court as well as the
judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting the
appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302, IPC the Appellant-accused
preferred the above noted Appeal before the Supreme Court wherein, the Court modified
the sentence to the extent that the conviction of the appellant-accused for the
offence was modified to as under Section 304-I, IPC and sentence was reduced to
the period already undergone by him i.e., 14.5 years and the rest of the
judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High
Court, was confirmed.
ISSUE:
The sole question which arose before
the Supreme Court was, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, can
it be said that the accused committed the murder of the deceased as defined
under Section 300 IPC and therefore whether both the courts below rightly
convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC or whether the
conviction can be altered to Section 304-I, IPC?
HELD:
While answering the
question, the Supreme Court delved on the proposition that, when the culpable
homicide can be said to be the murder and when the culpable homicide is not
amounting to murder, and adverted to Section 300 of the IPC.
Where after, considering Section 300
of the IPC, the Supreme Court observed that the said Section is in two parts,
and, the first part is when culpable homicide can be said to be the murder and
the second part is the exceptions when the culpable homicide is not murder. The
relevant part of Section 300 IPC for the purpose of the present case would be
clause 4 to Section 300 and exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. As per clause 4 to
Section 300 IPC, 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, such culpable homicide can
be said to be the murder.
However, as per exception 4 to Section
300, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation
in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. As
per explanation to exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is immaterial in such
cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Further, with regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court observed that it cannot be said
that there was any intention on the part of the accused of causing bodily
injury to the deceased and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Moreover, since there was no evidence
to show that there was any premeditation on the part of the accused and
considering the case of the prosecution as it is and since, there was a sudden
quarrel with respect to money and the accused pushed the deceased and stood on
the abdomen in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. Therefore, the case
would fall under exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. As per explanation to
exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is immaterial in such cases which party
offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Therefore, both the courts
below have materially erred in holding the appellant-accused guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Thus, the Supreme Court held that at
the most, it can be said that the appellant-accused has committed the offence
under Section 304-I IPC.