While upholding the murder conviction of a son who killed his father under the influence of alcohol, the Supreme Court observed that it was a case of merciless beating by the son on the vital parts of the body of his deceased father.

The Bench of Justice SK Kaul and Justice PS Narasimha held –

"It is 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."

Counsel Sushil Balwada appeared for the Appellant before the Apex Court.

It is a case of patricide where both father and the son were drinking together. The effect of alcohol resulted in a fight between the father and the son. The informer who was a neighbor on reaching their house found the Appellant-son assaulting his father with Nagar wood. The deceased fell onto the ground and died.

The autopsy report opined that the injuries on the body were caused by some hard and blunt object between half to two hours of death. The injuries were stated to be fatal to life and sufficient to cause the death of the deceased.

Charges were framed under Section 302 IPC and the Appellant pleaded innocence in his statement under Section 313 CrPC.

The Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge. On appeal being preferred before the High Court, the same was dismissed.

SLP was preferred by the Appellant before the Supreme Court on the plea that the case would fall under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and not Section 302 of the IPC.

The Appellant had already undergone twelve years of imprisonment by then.

The Apex Court noted that there was no prior intention but in the sudden fight, injuries were inflicted. The Court also noted that in total there were eleven injuries caused to the deceased father.

Further, the Bench also observed, "It is not the 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. There were multiple injuries on the head – on the right side, on the front side, on the back left side, near the left ear, on the front and left side of the neck and on the left cheek. The sternum bone on the chest was broken and there was a blood clot beneath it. On the right chest, 4X4 inch area contusion was present due to which the second, third, fourth rib were broken and blood had accumulated beneath the broken rib. Similarly on the left chest, there was a 6X2 inches size contusion. The contusions were also present on the back and left abdominal side."

The Court held that it is a clear case of mercilessly beating on the vital parts of the body.

Thus, the Bench added that sympathy for the son in such a scenario would be misplaced.

In this context, the Court added, "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 held that the only redeeming feature is that the Appellant has already undergone 12 years of the sentence and on completion of the sentence, as per remission policy, he would be liable to be considered for release.

Thus, the Court directed the State to consider the case of the Appellant for remission, the moment he completes the mandatory sentence as per the policy for such consideration and disposed of the Appeal.

Cause Title - Chherturam @Chainu v. State of Chattisgarh

Click here to read/download the Judgment