LexG H KHOKAN @ KHOKHAN VISHWAS versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R. [2021] 1 S.C.R. 534 534 KHOKAN @ KHOKHAN VISHWAS v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2021) FEBRUARY 11, 2021 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Conviction of appellant u/s.302 – Prosecution case was that on the fateful evening when the victim- deceased was in the house of his neighbour, appellant had conversation with him regarding money – Thereafter, appellant started quarreling with him and pushed him down and stood up on his abdomen and crushed – Next day, in the evening when deceased had severe pain in abdomen, he was admitted in hospital for treatment and on the same night he was referred to another hospital – After two days, he died due to septicemia caused by injuries in small intestine – Courts below convicted appellant u/s.302 – Appeal confined to question whether conviction be altered to s.304-I – Held: From the evidence on record, and even as per the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the appellant-accused had the intention of such action on his part to cause death or such bodily injury to the deceased which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased – There was no evidence that there was any premeditation on the part of the appellant – There was a sudden quarrel with respect to money and the appellant pushed the deceased and stood on his abdomen in the heat of passion – Therefore, case would fall under exception 4 to s.300 – As per explanation to exception 4 to s.300, it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault – Courts below materially erred in holding appellant guilty for offence punishable u/s.302 – Appellant held guilty for offence u/ s.304-I. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Section 300 of the IPC is in two parts. The first part is when culpable homicide can be said to be the murder and the second part is the exceptions when the culpable homicide is A B C D E F G H 535 not murder. The relevant part of Section 300 IPC for this case would be clause 4 to Section 300 and exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. As per clause 4 to Section 300 IPC, 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, such culpable homicide can be said to be the murder. However, as per exception 4 to Section 300, culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without pre meditation 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. [Para 7][540-H; 541-A-C] 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused of causing bodily injury to the deceased and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.There is no evidence that there was any premeditation on the part of the accused. There was a sudden quarrel with respect to money and the accused pushed the deceased and stood on the abdomen in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. Therefore, the case would fall under exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. As per explanation to exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Therefore, both the courts below materially erred in holding the appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. At the most, it can be said that the appellant-accused has committed the offence under Section 304-I IPC. [Paras 8, 9][541-F-H; 542-A-C] 3. In the present case, though the deceased died due to septicemia, however, it is required to be noted that he died while taking treatment in the hospital and that too he died within three days from the date of occurrence of the incident. However, at the same time, it is also required to be noted that the deceased was admitted to the hospital after 24 hours and thereafter he died within three days due to septicemia. If he was given the treatment immediately, the result might have been different. In any case, there was no premeditation on the part of the accused; the accused KHOKAN @ KHOKHAN VISHWAS v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH A B C D E F G H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.