| CITATION | AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 939, AIRONLINE 2021 SC 51 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 11 February, 2021 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas |
| RESPONDENT | State of Chhattisgarh |
| BENCH | Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud |
INTRODUCTION:
On February 11, 2021, the Apex Court, which was composed of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah’s Division Bench, held that the judgment and order that had been challenged and that had been passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Bilaspur, as well as the judgment and order that had been passed by the learned trial Court finding the accused person guilty of the crime under Section 302 IPC, were to be modified to the extent that the accused person was found guilty of the offence under Section 304-I, IPC as the case was fell under the 4th exception of Sec 300 of IPC and that he would be sentenced to the period already undergone by him which is 14.5 years.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- Around 6:30 p.m. on August 8, 2006, the deceased (Manku Ram) was visiting his neighbor Devan’s house.
- The accused spoke with the deceased regarding money at that very moment, after which the accused got into a fight with the deceased.
- The accused argued with the deceased, knocked him to the ground, and stepped on his stomach, crushing it.
- On the next day, i.e. on August 9, 2006 at about 6:30 p.m, the deceased informed his sister about the severe pain in the abdomen, after which the sister of the deceased got him admitted to the N.M.D.C. Apollo Central Hospital, Bacheli for the treatment.
- The deceased was referred to Maharani Hospital in Jagdalpur on the evening of August 9, 2006 for treatment, where during treatment he died on August 11, 2006.
- According to the post mortem report prepared by Dr. (Smt.) J. Gupta, shock from septicemia caused by small intestinal injury was the cause of death of the deceased Manku Ram.
- The accused was given a life sentence by the learned trial court after it found him guilty of the offense punishable by Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court the accused filed an appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The High Court agreed with the decision of the Trial Court and held the accused guilty for the offence of murder under Sec 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Hence, the accused filed an Appeal before the Supreme Court.
ISSUES INVOLVED:
- Whether it is possible to conclude that the accused murdered the deceased in accordance with Section 300 IPC considering the facts and circumstances of the case?
- Whether both the Trial Court and High Court was accurate for convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC?
- Whether the conviction can be altered to Section 304-I IPC?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
- It was submitted that only due to a sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased, the accused pushed the deceased and sat on his abdomen and there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased.
- It was further stated that the deceased was admitted to the hospital the day after the incident occurred and thereafter after the period of 2 days, the deceased died due to septicemia.
- Thus, in light of everything, the case must have fallen under the fourth exception of Section 300 of the IPC, and as a result, it cannot be claimed that the accused has committed an offense covered by Section 302 of the IPC.
- It is submitted that the accused must be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-I IPC rather than under Sec 302 IPC.
- Further it was also submitted that the accused has already undergone the 14.5 years of imprisonment in the Jail.
- The Counsel appearing for the accused (appellant) while relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay v. State of U.P., prayed to alter the conviction of the appellant-accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-I IPC.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
- It is submitted that the deceased passed away within three days of the occurring of the incident, while receiving medical treatment in the hospital.
- It is submitted that the deposition of the doctor who initially treated the deceased and thereafter the deposition of the doctor who conducted the post mortem are required to be considered as a whole.
- It is stated that Dr. (Smt.) J. Gupta (PW-3) suspected that the deceased received the injuries in abdomen by crushing.
- It is submitted that clause 3 or 4 of Sec 300 of IPC would apply to this case.
- It is submitted that both Trial Court & High Court did not committed any error while convicting the accused for the offence of Murder of Manku Ram under Sec 302 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT:
The Apex Court after considering all the facts and circumstances was of the view that 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. Also it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Therefore, the case would fall under exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. Also both the Trial court & the High Court have materially erred in holding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
So the Appeal of the accused was succeeded and his conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304-I IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him that is 14.5 years. As the accused has already undergone the imprisonment of 14.5 years, it was ordered to set the accused at liberty.
ANALYSIS:
In the present matter the Accused in the heat of passion upon sudden fight pushed the deceased and stood on his abdomen due to which after 3 days the deceased died while undergoing treatment. The accused was held guilty by both Trial Court & the High Court under Sec 302 of IPC for the offence of the murder. But the Apex Court in the matter altered the punishment of the accused from Sec 302 to Sec 304-I. It was observed that the matter will fall under exception 4 of Sec 300 which says that the Murder would amount to Culpable Homicide if the death of the person was caused in a sudden fight.
Similarly in the present matter, the Accused in a sudden fight on the matter of money pushed the deceased on ground and stood on his abdomen. The Apex Court stated that from the evidence on record, and even as per the case of the prosecution it is very much clear that the Accused had no intention to cause the death or such bodily injury to the deceased which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. Further there is no evidence that there was any premeditation on the part of the accused and the accused did not carry any weapon. Also in cases like this it doesn’t matter which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Further the reliance placed by the counsel of the Appellant (Accused) on the case of Sanjay v. State of U.P. was denied by the Supreme Court as the decision of such judgment does not apply to the facts of this case. In the said case, the death occurred after 62 days of the occurrence of the incident and in between the deceased was discharged from the hospital in good condition.
So the Apex Court was right in altering the punishment of the Accused from Sec 302 to Sec 304-I of the Indian Penal Code.
CONCLUSION:
The Apex Court in the present matter has rightly altered the conviction of Accused from Sec 302 to Sec 304-I of IPC and has criticized both the Trial Court and the High Court for convicting the accused under Sec 302 of the IPC. There was no premeditation on the part of the accused and neither the accused carried any weapon, the quarrel started all of a sudden. Therefore, the case would fall under exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and neither clause 3 of Section 300 nor clause 4 of Section 300 shall be attracted.
REFERENCES:
- https://main.sci.gov.in
- Sanjay v. State of U.P. (2016) 3 SCC 62
- https://indiankanoon.org
This Article is written by Sargam Bansal, G.H.G Institute of Law, Sidhwan Khurd, Intern at Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments