Read Time: 06 minutes
The Supreme Court refused to accept the submission on behalf of the accused son that during an altercation, he picked up a Nagar Wood and inflicted few injuries to his father, which resultantly caused death and that there was no motivation and intention, which meant that essential ingredients of Section 300 of IPC were absent and the conviction under Section 302 of IPC was erroneous.
In a case of patricide, where while both the father and the son were drinking together, a quarrel broke out between them and the son inflicted a total of eleven injuries on his father's head, chest and abdomen, the Supreme Court refused to accept the plea on behalf of the son that the case would fall under Section 304 Part-I (Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and not Section 302 of the IPC.
Court, thus, refused to apply Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC which states that 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.
A division bench held that it was clearly a case of mercilessly beating on all the vital parts of the body and reigning blows, albeit with a wood piece, on 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 endeavour 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", held a bench of Justices SK Kaul and PS Narasimha.
In the instant case, the informer, one Chamruram, who was a neighbour of the accused son, on reaching their house found the son assaulting his father, Goienda, the deceased, with Nagar Wood.
The autopsy report stated that the injuries on the dead body were caused by some hard and blunt object between half to two hours of death which were fatal to life and sufficient to cause death to the deceased.
Court noted that the cause of death was stated to be hemorrhage shock caused by the fatal injuries to the vital organs and that death was homicidal in nature.
"There were eleven injuries! It is not only the number of injuries but where and in what manner they were inflicted, even if it is by a piece of Nagar Wood and not by a dangerous weapon", the division bench remarked.
Against this backdrop, the bench held that sympathy for the son in such a scenario would be misplaced.
"The victim was the father. The appellant must take the consequences of such merciless attack on his father. There is no cause made out for application of Exception 4 of Section 300", the Court added.
Case Title: CHHERTURAM @ CHAINU vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Please Login or Register
