LexCHENDA @ CHANDA RAM versus STATE OF CHHATISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 327 CHENOA @ CHANDA RAM v. STATE OF CHHATISGARH (Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2013) AUGUST 27, 2013 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.300 Exception 4 and 304 (Part A B 8) - Prosecution under s.302 - Conviction by courts below - c Held: The evidence shows that there was no previous enmity between the parties - There was also no premeditation and it was a case of sudden fight and a result of immediate provocation - The fatal blow was in the course of a scuffle between two persons - The accused also did not take D advar;tage of the situation or behave in a cruel and unusual manner - Hence, the case is covered under Exception 4 to s.300 - In view of the facts the case would fall uls. 304 (Part II) - Punishment of the accused is altered from life imprisonment to imprisonment for a period of 10 years with E fine of Rs. 50, 0001- - The fine amount to be paid as compensation to the widow and child of the deceased. The appellant-accused was prosecuted alongwith another accused for having killed one person. Appellant- accused was convicted uls.302 IPC and sentenced him F to life imprisonment. However the other accused was acquitted. High Court confirmed the judgment of trial court. Hence the present appeal. Appellant-accused contended that the case would G come under Exception 4 of s. 300 IPC as there was only a single blow with a stick and there was no previous enmity and as such the act was done in the spur of the moment without any premeditation. 327 H 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 17 S.C.R. 1A Partly allowing the appeal, the Court ' HELD: 1. Exception 4 to s.300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused (i) without premeditation; (ii) in a sudden fight; (iii) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner; and 8 (iv) the fight must have been with the person killed. All the four ingredients must be found in order to apply Exception 4. [Para 13] [338-E, F] 2. There is no evidence in the present case that there C ·was previous enmity between parties though PW2 has attempted for such a version of the case, she has been disbelieved on that account because of contradictions within her own statement under Section 161. The available evidence would show that there was no o premeditation on the part of the appellant and that it was a case of sudden fight. It has to be noted that the deceased was called by his wife to the spot to settle the disputes once for all and that the ensuing sudden scuffle with the first accused was in the presence of his wife. It E has come out in the evid.ence of PW11 that the injury inflicted by the appellant was during the scuffle between the deceased and the first accused A-1 and that after the lone strike on the head of the deceased by the appellant, both the deceased and A-1 had fallen down and it was F PW2 who separated A-1 and the deceased as they had become entangled with each other. That only means that the deceased had overpowered A-1 or else the deceased alone would have fallen down and not the first accused A-1. The said conduct of the deceased overpowering A- 1 during the scuffle was the immediate provocation for G the appellant to take the weapon, the tekani which was available in the vicinity to hit the deceased. There is no evidence at all as to whether the appellant intended to hit on the head only or elsewhere on the body. The scuffling parties being in motion, it could easily have H CHENOA @ CHANDA RAM v. STATE OF 329 CHHATISGARH happened that the blow fell on the head unintentionally. A No doubt the scuffle of the deceased was with the A-1 but the entire fight was with the deceased on one side, and the appellant and other accused A-1 on the other side. It is not required that the fight must be between the main accused and deceased. The fight can as well be B between two parties, the deceased on one side and all the other accused on the other side. There is only one hit. There is nothing to show that there was any cruelty involved by inflicting any other injury or by any other conduct on the part of the appellant so as to hold that c the appellant was taking any undue advantage of the situation or that he behaved in a cruel or unusual · manner. Thus, all the four ingredients required for treating the case under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Code are satisfied in the instant case. [Para 16] [342-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.