LexCHAITU & ORS. versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 8 S.C.R. 658 CHAITU & ORS. v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No.1323 of 2012) APRIL 25, 2014 rr.s. THAKUR AND c. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 147, 3231149 and 3041149 (Part If) - Prosecution for murder- Of 7 accused - 3 eye-witnesses C to the incident including injured eye-witness - Conviction of all the accused by trial court - Conviction and sentence confirmed in respect of 3 accused by High Court - Appeal in respect of other accused abated due to their death - Held: Homicidal death of the deceased is established by the o evidence of eye-witnesses and medical evidence - Delay in lodging FIR has also been properly explained by prosecution - However, in the facts of the case, it was a case of grave and sudden provocation, hence would fall under First Exception to s.300 /PC - Therefore, the accused liable to be convicted E uls. 304 (Part II) instead of s. 302 - Sentenced altered to five years RI. The three appellants-accused (accused Nos. 2, 4 and 7) alongwith 4 others were prosecuted u/ss. 147, 323/149 and 302/149 IPC for causing death of one person and for F causing injuries to PW1 (complainant). Prosecution case was that 6 of the accused ·belonged to the same family and one accused was from the same village. The deceased and PW1 were related. G Both the parties were having their agricultural fields nearby. The dispute between the parties arose over sharing of water for irrigation of their fields. The accused persons caused injuries to the deceased and PW-1. The accused went to their house after intervention by PWs 1, H 658 CHAITU & ORS. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 659 2 and 3. The victim (deceased) was taken to the hospital A next morning. While on way to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Trial court convicted all the accused and awarded life sentence. High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellants-accused. Appeal as regards other accused abated due to their B death. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. PW 1 (eye-witness) sustained simple injuries during the occurrence as evident from Ex.Ka-3 C injury report. PW2 an·d PW3 (eye-witnesses) in their testimonies corroborated the version of PW1. Their • testimonies are cogent and trustworthy. Accepting the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, it is clear that accused Nos.1 to 7 caused injuries to the deceased as well as to PW1 D (the injured eye-witness). In fact, the occurrence has been admitted by accused No.1 who also lodged the complaint alleging that while he attempted to divert the water to his field for irrigation, it was obstructed by PW1 and the deceased and they also attacked him and he al!iP E wielded blows with lathi. (Para 7] (665-H; 666-A] 1.2. The delay in lodging the First Information Report is properly explained. The occurrence place is situated at a distance of 8 miles from Police Station as shown in F Ex.Ka-5 Chick report and according to PWs 1 to 3 the injured (since deceased) could not be taken to the Police Station or Hospital on the occurrence night itself d.~e to distance factor and fear of accused and in the next day morning when they took him to the Police Station, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. [Para 8] [666-B-C] G 1.3. The deceased died of homicidal violence is established by the medical evidence adduced by the prosecution. PW5 who conducted the a,1,Jtopsy, expressed opinion that the death has occurred on· H 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014) 8 S.C.R. A account of shock and hemorrhage mainly due to injury No.1 found on the head. [Para 9) [666-D-E) 2.1. In the facts of the case, it is evident that the assault was in the heat of passion on a sudden quarrel 8 in which the acc1.tsed cannot be said to have acted in an unduly cruel manner. Evidence shows that the accused/ appellants gave blows with lathi, legs and fists mainly on the limbs of the deceased except injury No.1, which was on the head. The death was not instantaneous, rather he died on the next day of the occurrence. Considering the C entire attending circumstances, it was a case of grave and sudden provocation and would fall under the. First Exception to Section 300 IPC and the offence would come within the second part of Section 304 IPC and the appellants would be liable to be convicted for the said D offence. [Para 11) [667-E-F] 2.2. Imposition of five years rigorous imprisonment on each of the appellants
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.