No Premeditation; Altercation Took Place Because Of Previous Dispute: Chhattisgarh HC Modifies Conviction From Section 302 IPC To Section 304 Part-I of IPC

The High Court was considering a criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant as well as a Juvenile in conflict with law against the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the Special Judge.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal asserted, “...the act of the appellants herein completely satisfies the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv) the appellants had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

Advocate Shobhit Kosta represented the Appellants while Dy. A.G Shashank Thakur represented the Respondent-State.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to 2019 when the complainant gave an intimation that the appellants including juvenile in conflict with law indulged in selling liquor illegally which was objected by the deceased Rajendra Sen. Their dispute was going on for 4-5 years. One day when the complainant reached near the house of the deceased, he saw that an altercation was going on between the deceased and the present appellants including the juvenile in conflict with law.

The juvenile in conflict with law gave a knife blow to the neck of the deceased because of which he fell down on the ground. Thereafter, the appellants and juveniles in conflict with law fled away from the place. The deceased was immediately taken to the hospital where he died during treatment. Charge sheet was filed against the appellants Chovaram, Laxman Dhruv and Bheem Nishad before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurud for the offence under Section 302 IPC, whereas, the charge sheet against the juvenile in conflict with law was separately filed before the Juvenile Justice Board, Dhamtari for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

Issue

One of the issues before the Bench was whether the case of appellants including juvenile in conflict with law were covered in exception 4 to Section 300 IPC viz-a-viz culpable homicide not amounting to murder and their conviction could be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC.

Reasoning

The Bench noted the fact that the Doctor conducting the postmortem held that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature by the injuries on his neck and the prosecution had proved the death of the deceased being homicidal in nature.

So far as involvement of appellants in offence in question was concerned, the Bench noted that the involvement of the appellants in the altercation or in the offence in question could not be rebutted by the defence in the cross examination of these witnesses. Moreover, the wife of the deceased remained firm in saying that the accused persons were responsible for the injuries caused to her husband by knife. Therefore, the involvement of the appellants in the crime in question had also been proved by the prosecution.

It was further noticed by the Bench that the knife seized from the juvenile in conflict with law was sent for FSL examination and it was mentioned in the report that human blood was found on the knife which connected the juvenile in conflict with law in the offence in question. The involvement of the juvenile in conflict with law in the offence was also proved by the prosecution.

Coming to the main issue at hand, the Bench explained that if the appellants intended to kill the deceased, they would have made repeated blows or would have armed themselves with any other deadly weapon.From the evidence, it was also reflected that the dispute between them continued since 5-6 years with respect to illegal selling of liquor. The juvenile in conflict with law made only one blow on the neck of the deceased and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner.

“There was no premeditation on the part of the appellants to cause death of deceased Rajendra Sen and because of the previous dispute, the altercation took place. As the appellants were not acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the appellants did not have any intention to cause death of the deceased, but by causing such injury, they must have had the knowledge that such injury inflicted by them would likely to cause death of the deceased and as such, their case would fall within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC…”, the Bench explained.

Thus, considering all the factual and legal aspects, the Bench set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC and modified their conviction to Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.The appellants Chovaram, Laxman Dhruv and Bheem Nishad were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years. As the appellants were reported to be in jail since 2019, the Bench held them to be entitled for set off of their undergone period. The Juvenile in conflict with law was also sentenced for RI for six years. Since the juvenile in conflict with law has been presently on bail, the Bench directed that he be sent to safety home/jail to serve his remaining part of sentence as provided under Section 19(3) of the Act of Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children’s Act, 2015.

Cause Title: Chovaram & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:1436-DB)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocate Shobhit Kosta

Respondent: Dy. A.G Shashank Thakur

Click here to read/download Order