Devendra Kumar vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

2024 INSC 841 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2015

DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 4th

October, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2004

whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal preferred

by the present appellants and upheld the order of conviction and

sentence dated 17th October, 2003 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge (FTC), Kawardha (CG)1 in S.T. No. 50 of 2003.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:-

2.1 On 20th December 2002, at about 11 a.m., a complaint was Signature Not Verified

lodged by one Dhannu Das (PW-2), the shopkeeper of a betel Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2024.11.06 15:16:40 IST Reason: 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’.

1 shop at Village Chhirha who had witnessed an incident near his

shop wherein the appellants had assaulted the deceased, namely

Bahal, with lathis, a rod and an axe after making a threat that

they would kill him. On the receipt of the complaint, the Police

Station at Kawardha registered a First Information Report2 being

Crime No. 262 of 2002 under Section 307 read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 against the appellants.

2.2 Pertinently, prior to the occurrence of the incident which

ultimately led to this criminal appeal, a land dispute relating to

certain agricultural land and crops therein was pending between

the families of the present appellants and the deceased. In the

pending lis, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had passed an order

in Criminal Case No. 216 of 2003 titled Bahalram v. Devendra

on 17th December 2002, thereby closing the proceedings under

Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of

the order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur,

directing the maintenance of status quo in respect of the

agricultural fields which were in the possession of the present

appellants.

2 “FIR” for short 3 “IPC” for short

2 2.3 According to the prosecution story, at about 9 a.m. on 20 th

December 2002, Rajni Bai (PW-1) and her son Bahal, the

deceased, reached Village Chhirha, having walked their way from

Kawardha. Upon reaching Village Chhirha, the deceased stopped

near the betel shop of Dhannu Das (PW-2). The deceased was

showing the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated

17th December 2002 to Ghurwaram Patel (PW-4), the Sarpanch

of Village Chhirha, when the present appellants arrived at the

scene. Appellant No.1-Devendra and Appellant No. 2-Rohit were

armed with lathis whereas Appellant No. 3-Banauram was

carrying an axe and Appellant No.4-Kuleshwar was carrying a

rod. After warning the deceased that they would kill him that day

since he always quarreled in the land matter and created

litigation, the appellants engaged in a mar-peet with the

deceased, resulting in several injuries being caused to the

deceased. On seeing this, Rajni Bai (PW-1) intervened which led

the appellants to fight with her as well whereupon she sustained

several injuries as well. On the same day, at about 1:15 p.m.,

during the course of the treatment, the deceased succumbed to

his injuries.

3 2.4 Subsequently, the post-mortem was conducted wherein it

was concluded that cause of death was coma caused by internal

haemorrhage which was in turn caused by a fracture in the head

leading to a brain injury.

2.5 Upon the conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was

filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha.

Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the

same came to be committed to the trial court.

2.6 Charges came to be filed by the trial court under Section

302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and in the alternate, Section

307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.7 The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to bring home the

guilt of the appellants. In their defence, the appellants denied the

charges and stated that they had been falsely implicated owing

to the agricultural land dispute.

2.8 At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found that the

prosecution had proved the case against the appellants and

accordingly, convicted them under Section 302 and Section 307

read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo

imprisonment for life.

4 2.9 Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred a

Criminal Appeal before the High Court. The High Court vide the

impugned judgment and order dismissed the Criminal Appeal

and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence awarded by

the trial court.

3. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, learned

Amicus Curiae, and Mr. Ravi Kumar Sharma, learned Deputy

Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of

Chhattisgarh.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that it is an admitted fact

that there has been a previous enmity between the family of the

appellants and the family of the deceased. It is submitted that

admittedly the appellants were in possession of the disputed

land. However, the deceased was making an attempt to

dispossess the appellants from the said land. It is submitted that

one month prior to the date of the incident, the wife of the

appellant No.1-Devendra Kumar lodged an FIR against the

deceased with regard to forcible dispossession. It is, therefore,

submitted that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted.

5

6. Learned Amicus Curiae, in the alternative, submitted that

the possibility of the deceased trying to dispossess the appellants

from the land in question and the appellants committing the

crime without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of

passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be denied. It is, therefore,

submitted that the offence, at the most, would fall under Part I

or Part II of Section 304 IPC.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the contrary,

submits that both the learned trial court as well as the High

Court, on correct appreciation of the evidence, have convicted the

appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the

IPC. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference would be

warranted.

8. It is further submitted that the present case is a case of

direct evidence wherein a number of eyewitnesses have

supported the prosecution version.

9. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties,

we have perused the evidence placed on record.

10. From the evidence of the medical expert Dr. N.K. Yadu (PW-

6), we do not find that any interference is warranted with the

finding that the death of the deceased Bahal was homicidal

6 death. The only question would be as to whether the conviction

would fall for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or

under a lesser offence.

11. Rajni Bai (PW-1) is the mother of the deceased Bahal. She

has stated that on the date of the incident, when the deceased

was showing the case related documents to Sarpanch, she saw

the accused persons assaulting her son. She has also stated that

the accused Devendra Kumar (Appellant No.1 herein) had

assaulted her with bamboo stick.

12. The fact regarding the previous enmity and the ongoing

dispute between the husband of Rajni Bai (PW-1) and the

accused No. 1-Devendra Kumar and others has not been denied

by her. She has also admitted in her cross-examination that the

fight took place between her son and the appellants herein near

the cart.

13. Rajni Bai’s (PW-1’s) evidence is corroborated by Dhannu

Das (PW-2). He has stated in his cross-examination that his shop

and the field of Devendra Kumar and others are adjacent to it.

He has also admitted the fact regarding Devendra Kumar and

others were cultivating the land adjacent to his shop.

7

14. Pusau (PW-3)-mason has also supported the prosecution

version.

15. Ghurwaram (PW-4)-Sarpanch of the village has also

supported the prosecution version. He has admitted in his cross-

examination that when the deceased had come to him, he had

read out the order of the SDO Rasandigoth and told him that he

will harvest the crop of half the land.

16. In view of the credible testimony of the eyewitnesses, we

have no reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court as

well as the High Court that it is on account of the injuries caused

by the appellants that the deceased had died.

17. The next question that requires to be considered is whether

the case would fall under Section 302 IPC or not.

18. It is not in dispute that there was previous enmity between

the parties. The accused persons were in possession of the land

in question. A month prior to the date of the incident, an FIR

was lodged by the wife of the appellant No.1-Devendra Kumar

against the deceased since he had tried to dispossess the

appellants.

19. From the evidence placed on record, specifically the

evidence of Dhannu Das (PW-2) in the presence of whom the

8 incident has occurred, it is clear that the place of the incident is

adjacent to the field in possession of the appellants. From the

evidence of Ghurwaram (PW4)- the Sarpanch of the village also it

is clear that there was a quarrel between the appellants and the

deceased. The weapons used by the accused persons are axe

and sticks, which are commonly used by the agriculturists.

There is no material on record to show that there is any

premeditation.

20. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the possibility

of offence being committed by the appellants without

premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of passion upon a

sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out. From the nature of the

injuries sustained by the deceased, it cannot be said that the

appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or

unusual manner.

21. In that view of the matter, we find that the appellants would

be entitled to benefit of doubt and the conviction under Section

302 IPC needs to be altered to the one under Part I of Section 304

IPC.

22. We are, therefore, inclined to partly allow the present

appeal.

9

23. In the result, we pass the following order:

(i) The appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC

is altered to the one under Part I of Section 304 IPC.

(iii) The appellants have already undergone a sentence of

more than 12 years prior to their release on bail by the

order of this Court dated 17th February 2015. We find

that the said sentence would subserve the ends of

justice. Therefore, the appellants are sentenced to the

period already undergone.

(iv) The bail bonds, if any shall stand discharged.

24. We place on record our deep appreciation to Mr. Vikrant

Narayan Vasudeva, learned Amicus Curiae for the valuable

assistance rendered.

..............................J (B.R. GAVAI)

...........................................J (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

...........................................J (K.V. VISWANATHAN) NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 06, 2024.

10