Kariman vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

2024 INSC 335 NON-REPORTABLE

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)

JUDGMENT

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

from filing the special leave petition in time because he was not Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.04.24 18:13:54 IST Reason:

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

order dated 27th 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

judgment and order dated 30th 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

11th 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

body over 5th to 10th ribs area. The 8th 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

was rejected by the High Court vide judgment dated 27 th June,

2016, which is assailed in the present appeal.

9. Vide order dated 21st 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

aspect of left side of the body under which the 8 th 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