Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ramesh Ram vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 16 August, 2019
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, K.M. Joseph
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1241/2019
[@ SLP [CRL] NO.7337/2019 @ DIARY NO.12585/2018]
RAMESH RAM & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Naveen, the deceased visited the house of the appellants on the occasion when the thread ceremony was in progress at the house of the appellants. The reason for the visit as per the father and wife of the deceased was an invitation to join the function. On the other hand, the stand of the appellants is that the deceased came uninvited and started abusing them.
Be that as it may, it resulted in a quarrel in which there are six ante-mortem injuries on the deceased as under:
“1. Both the eyes were black.
2. There was a torn wound above right eye 1x1x1 mm.
3. Scratch mark above left knee 1x1 cm
4. Scratch mark over right knee 2x1 cm
5. Scratch mark below left knee 1x1.5 cm Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL
6. Scratch mark near right hip 2x1 cm brown colour.” Date: 2019.08.21 17:01:03 IST Reason: It appears from the testimony of PW-4, the Doctor that the 2 blows rendered in the region of the head caused a brain injury which ultimately resulted in death.
The appellants before us number six with four male and two female numbers of the same family. It appears that the kicks and fist blows on the body of the deceased were caused by all six. Thus, all six have been convicted.
The trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34/149 of the Indian Penal Code and the High Court sustained the conviction.
Notice was issued by us limited to the issue whether the conviction was one which could be converted into Section 304 Part-I or 304 Part-II.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties who have taken us through the impugned judgment and material on record. The incident is at about 8.30 in the evening. The testimony of the wife of the deceased, PW-2 suggests that both her late husband and she were invited to the function. The deceased went there alone as the testimony of the wife is that she heard the commotion and noise of fighting from the house of the appellants which is about 15-20 steps away and then she saw her husband being beaten up by “blows of fists and legs”. She further states that there were “hitting at head, stomach and legs of my husband”. She made an endeavour to come in between but to no effect and when the husband was brought back home he died.
A perusal of the material does not show there was any premeditated intention to cause death. There was no past enmity. 3 The function was at the house of the appellants visited by the deceased – whether by invitation or of his own. It is in this sudden fight where blows were given by kicks and fists on the deceased that a brain injury was caused which resulted in death.
We seek to refer to the Exception 4 of Section 300, IPC in this behalf. The relevant provision reads as under:
“300. xxx xxx xxx Exception 4.- 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.
Explanation- It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.” A reading of the aforesaid provision shows that culpable homicide does not amount to murder if it is committed with premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The incident squarely falls within this description. The second part of the Exception also states that the offender should not have taken any undue advantage or acted in an unusual or cruel manner. In the present case, the attack was only by fists. The Explanation makes it clear that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Thus, whether the deceased abused the appellants causing the fight or for some other reason the appellants decided to assault the deceased would not make any difference in so far as 4 this aspect is concerned.
We are thus of the view that it is the aforesaid provision which would cover the case of the appellants and thus it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Insofar as the punishment to be imposed for the same, we reproduce Section 304 IPC as under:
“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, 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.
Classification of Offence Para I: Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non- bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. Para II: Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable.” We are of the view that the nature of the incident is such 5 that it cannot be said that it is a case where the intention was to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death but falls within the parameters of knowledge that it is likely to cause death thus would fall in Part II of section 304 IPC.
In the conspectus of the aforesaid, we sentence the appellants to undergo a period of seven years imprisonment in stead of life sentence as has been imposed by the trial Court.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs.
…………………………...……….J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ………………………………...….J. [K.M. JOSEPH] NEW DELHI AUGUST 16, 2019.6
ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 12585/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-06-2017 in CRLA No. 164/2011 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital) RAMESH RAM & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 51278/2018 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 51279/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 104044/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 16-08-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. C. K. Rai, AOR Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications stand disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[signed order is placed on the file]