Read Time: 12 minutes

The Apex Court on 11th February 2021, consisting of Division Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah held that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur as well as the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302, IPC are hereby modified to the extent convicting the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 304-I, IPC and sentencing him to the period already undergone by him i.e., 14.5 years.

The appellant(original accused) preferred the present appeal after feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and by which the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

“it is required to be noted that by order dated 08.01.2021, this Court issued a limited notice confined to whether the conviction should be altered to Section 304-I IPC.  Therefore, the present appeal is confined to the issue, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant-accused should be altered to Section 304-I, IPC or not.”- states the appellant.

The facts of the case date back to 08.08.2006 when the deceased (Manku Ram) was in the house of his neighbour.  At that very time, the accused had conversation with him regarding money. The accused quarrelled with, pushed him down and stood up on his abdomen crushing it. The next day the sister of the deceased got him admitted in the hospital (N.M.D.C. Apollo Central Hospital, Bacheli) for the treatment.

“On the night of 09.08.2006 itself, he was referred to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur for treatment.  During treatment, Manku Ram 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 Manku Ram was shock as a result of septicemia caused by injuries in small intestine.”-noted in the appeal.

“In light of the above facts and circumstances, it is required to be considered what offence the accused is said to have committed.  The learned 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 learned trial Court has awarded the life sentence to the accused.  The same has been confirmed by the High Court.”- as noted by the trial court.

The appellant argued that,

“after a period of two days, the deceased died because of septicemia.  It is submitted that therefore the case would fall under the fourth exception of Section 300 IPC and therefore it cannot be said that the appellant-accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.  It is submitted that the accused at the best be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-I, IPC.”

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case the bench noted that, “the sole question which is posed before this Court is, 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.”

The bench observed that,

“Section 300 of the IPC is in two parts.  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 our purpose would be clause 4 to Section 300 and exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.”

“it can be seen that the action of the appellant-accused to push the deceased down and stood up on his abdomen was preceded by a quarrel between the deceased and the accused.  From the evidence on record, and even as per the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the appellant-accused had the intention of such action on his part to cause death or such bodily injury to the deceased which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased.”

Considering the case of the prosecution the bench held that 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.  According to us, at the most, it can be said that the appellant-accused has committed the offence under Section 304-I IPC.”

“the death occurred 62 days after the occurrence due to septicemia.  In between, the deceased was discharged from the hospital in good condition and he survived for 62 days. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the deceased survived for 62 days and that his condition was stable when he was discharged from the hospital, this Court was of the opinion that the Court cannot draw inference that intended injury caused was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.” – observed the bench.

The bench held that the appeal succeeds in parts providing liberty to the accused and the  “rest of the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, confirmed by the High Court, is hereby confirmed.”

Case Title: Khokan @ Khokhan Vishwas Vs. State of Chhatisgarh
Statute/ Point of law involved: Indian Penal Mode

 

Access Copy of Judgement Here