Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 335
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). of 2024)
(Diary No. 24868/2023)
KARIMAN …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATISGARH …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. This special leave petition filed on behalf of the accused
petitioner is delayed by 2461 days.
2. It is specifically mentioned in the application seeking
condonation of delay that the accused petitioner was prevented
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.04.24
18:13:54 IST
Reason:
from filing the special leave petition in time because he was not
aware regarding the legal procedure and no guidance was
1
provided to him in jail. While being incarcerated in jail, the
petitioner came to know about legal aid being provided by the
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and accordingly, a
request was made on behalf of the petitioner to the Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee and consequently, a free legal aid
counsel was appointed by the Committee to defend the petitioner
and to file the special leave petition on his behalf.
3. The delay in filing of the special leave petition is thus,
condoned.
4. Leave granted.
5. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and
th
order dated 27 June, 2016 passed by the High Court of
Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 712 of 2003
whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected and
th
judgment and order dated 30 October, 2001 rendered by the
Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur,
Sarguja(C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No. 359/99, convicting
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘IPC’)
and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, was affirmed.
2
6. As per the prosecution case, deceased Dasmet Bai was
living with the appellant as his second wife. It is alleged that on
th
11 September, 1999 at about 2.00 p.m., the appellant assaulted
Dasmet Bai by fists and stones and thereby, caused her death.
Budhram(PW-2), the uncle of the deceased Dasmet Bai lodged a
report of the incident at the Kusmi Police Station on the very
same day, at about 5.20 p.m., on the basis of which an
FIR(Exhibit P-6) being Crime No. 61/99 came to be registered
against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC. The usual process of investigation was started. Inquest
was conducted on the dead body and thereafter, the same was
sent for post mortem. Dr. R.K. Tripathi(PW-11) conducted
autopsy upon the dead body of Dasmet Bai and issued the post
mortem report(Exhibit P-24) taking note of a bruise admeasuring
10 cm X 8 cm on the posterio lateral aspect of left side of the
th th th
body over 5 to 10 ribs area. The 8 rib was found fractured
underneath this injury which led to laceration of spleen causing
hypovolemic shock and proved fatal.
7. Charge sheet was filed against the appellant after
conclusion of investigation and the case upon committal was sent
to the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur,
3
Sarguja on transfer. The accused was charged for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial. Eleven witnesses were examined and relevant
documents were exhibited by the prosecution to bring home the
guilt of the accused. The statement of the accused appellant was
recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
wherein he denied the circumstances as appearing against him in
the prosecution case and claimed to be innocent. However, no
evidence was led in defence.
8. As stated above, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the
appellant as above and the appeal preferred against conviction
th
was rejected by the High Court vide judgment dated 27 June,
2016, which is assailed in the present appeal.
st
9. Vide order dated 21 July, 2023 this Court issued limited
notice to examine whether the conviction of the accused under
Section 302 IPC could be converted either to Part I or Part II of
Section 304 IPC.
10. Shri Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel representing the
appellant contended that even if the allegations set out in the
deposition of the prosecution eye-witnesses[Tara Bai(PW-4),
Thouli Bai(PW-5) and Lalo Bai(PW-6)] are taken into account,
4
apparently some sudden dispute arose between the accused and
Dasmet Bai(deceased) whereafter the accused chased the lady
and on catching up, he hit her with fists and slaps. Thereafter,
the accused picked up a stone lying nearby and gave a single
blow to the deceased. Learned senior counsel urged that if the
opinion of Dr. R.K. Tripathi, Medical Jurist(PW-11) is seen,
evidently the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out
against the appellant. He urged that as per Dr. R.K. Tripathi,
Medical Jurist(PW-11), only one injury being a bruise
admeasuring 10 cm X 8 cm was seen on the posterio lateral
th
aspect of left side of the body under which the 8 rib was broken
causing laceration of the spleen. Shri Hansaria submitted that
the Medical Jurist(PW-11) did not state in his evidence that the
injury caused to Dasmet Bai(deceased) was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further urged that
it is a case of a single injury being inflicted by the accused to the
deceased during the course of a sudden quarrel without acting in
a cruel manner and thus the charge, if any, against the accused
cannot travel beyond Section 304 Part II of IPC.
11. He submitted that the appellant has already remained in
custody for a period of almost 17 years and hence, while toning
5
down the offence, suitable reduction in the sentence may be
directed.
12. Per contra , Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned AAG
appearing on behalf of the State, vehemently and fervently
opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant. She urged that as per the testimony of the eye-
witnesses(PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6), the appellant chased down
Dasmet Bai(deceased) without any reason and after she had
fallen down, the appellant hit her with a stone measuring about
one foot and thus, both knowledge as well as intention to cause
death of the victim can be attributed to the accused-appellant.
She thus, implored the Court to dismiss the appeal.
13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the impugned judgments and have minutely
analysed the evidence available on record.
14. Admittedly, the appellant and the deceased were living
together as husband and wife by virtue of prevailing customary
practices. From a perusal of the statements of the eye-
witnesses(PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6), it is evident that the accused
appellant was seen chasing Dasmet Bai(deceased), said to be his
6
second wife. However, the genesis behind the incident was not
divulged by any of the prosecution witnesses. The first
information report(Exhibit P-6) was lodged by Budhram(PW-2),
the uncle of deceased Dasmet Bai. He did not utter a single word
in his evidence that his niece who was living with the appellant
was ever treated with cruelty by the accused. It was admitted by
the witness in cross examination that both the accused as well as
Dasmet Bai(deceased) used to consume liquor. It is thus,
apparent that the appellant had no motive to hurt the deceased
and some sudden quarrel had flared up between the accused and
Dasmet Bai(deceased) which led to the incident.
15. As per the admitted case set out in the evidence of the eye-
witnesses(PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6), when the accused was chasing
Dasmet Bai(deceased), he was unarmed. It is only after Dasmet
Bai(deceased) had fallen down, that the accused picked up a
stone lying nearby and gave a blow thereof to the deceased.
16. Lalo Bai(PW-6) admitted in her cross examination that
Dasmet Bai(deceased) fell on the road with boulders and
sustained injuries due to the fall on the ground.
17. Dr. R.K. Tripathi, Medical Jurist(PW-11) proved the post
mortem report(Exhibit P-24) taking note of the presence of one
7
bruise admeasuring 10 cm X 8 cm on the left side of the body of
the deceased resulting into the fracture of one rib. The said
fractured rib caused laceration of the spleen. The cause of death
was opined as shock due to internal bleeding. Thus, by no
stretch of imagination, can be it accepted that the accused had
the intention to cause injury/injuries to the victim with the
intention or knowledge that the same would result into her death.
18. The act of the accused is not covered by any of the four
clauses contained in Section 300 IPC which are reproduced
hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-
“
300. Murder .—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
2ndly .—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of
the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
3rdly .—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury
to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
4thly .—If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”
19. The accused can at best be attributed with the knowledge
that the injury of the nature which he inflicted upon Dasmet
Bai(deceased) was likely to cause death but without any intention
8
to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as was likely to
cause death. Thus, the act of the accused is covered under Part
II of Section 304 IPC which is extracted hereinbelow for ready
reference:-
“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. —
…..or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if
the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to
cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or
to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death .”
(emphasis supplied)
20. It may also be noted that Dr. R.K. Tripathi, Medical
Jurist(PW-11) did not express opinion that the single injury
caused to the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature.
21. Hence, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the
accused as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High
Court for offence under Section 302 IPC is unsustainable in facts
as well as in law.
22. Thus, the conviction of appellant herein for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC is modified and altered to that
under Part II of Section 304 IPC. The appellant is directed to
9
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the
offence punishable under Section 304, Part II of IPC.
23. As the appellant has already undergone sentence for about
17 years, we do not propose to impose any fine upon him. The
appellant is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if his
detention is not required in any other case.
24. The appeal is partly allowed in these terms.
25. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
26. We express our appreciation for able assistance provided by
Shri Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Advocate acting as a free legal aid
counsel on behalf of the appellant.
……..……………………J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
…..………………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
April 22, 2024
10