JUGUT RAM versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1140 · Decided: 16-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
JUGUT RAM
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 16, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 304 (Part II) – Assault by Lathi – Resulting in death of the
victim after one day – Conviction u/s. 302 IPC and life imprisonment
by Courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: ‘Lathi’ is a
common item carried by a villager – It cannot be called a weapon
of assault simpliciter – In the case of an assault by ‘lathi’, it has to
be ascertained whether there was intention or knowledge – The
circumstances, manner of assault, nature and number of injuries
will have to be considered cumulatively to decipher the intention or
knowledge as the case may be – In the facts of the present case,
conviction is altered to one u/s. 304 (Part II) – Accused since has
already undergone maximum period of sentence, is directed to be
set at liberty.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A lathi is a common item carried by a villager in
this country, linked to his identity. The fact that it is also capable
of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon
of assault simpliciter. In a case like the present, of an assault on
the head with a lathi, it is always a question fact in each case
whether there was intention to cause death or only knowledge
that death was likely to occur. The circumstances, manner of
assault, nature and number of injuries will all have to be considered
cumulatively to decipher the intention or knowledge as the case
may be. [Para 7][1142-G-H; 1143-A]
2. Accordingly the conviction of the appellant is altered from
Section 302 IPC to Section 304 (Part II) IPC. The appellant is in
custody since 2004. He has already undergone the maximum
period of sentence prescribed under the same. The appellant is,
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 1140
1140
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1141
therefore, directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted
in any other case. [Para 11][1144-E-F]
Chamru Budhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954
SC 652; Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009)
15 SCC 635 : [2009] 13 SCR 548; Mohd. Shakeel v.
State of A.P., (2007) 3 SCC 119 – relied on.
Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1958] SCR 1495;
Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1995) SCC (Crl.) 165; Laltu
Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (2019) 15 SCC 344; State
of A.P. v. S. Rayappa, (2006) 4 SCC 512 : [2006] 2
SCR 200 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1958] SCR 1495
referred to
Para 7
[2009] 13 SCR 548
relied on
Para 9
(2007) 3 SCC 119
relied on
Para 9
(2019) 15 SCC 344
referred to
Para 10
[2006] 2 SCR 200
referred to
Para 10
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
616 of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2010 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2004.
Sourav Roy, Dy.  AG, Mrs. Nanita Sharma, Mahesh Kumar,
Pranav Sachdeva, Prabudh Singh, Suushant Yadav, Ms. Devika Khanna,
Leeladhar Prajapat, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
NAVIN SINHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant assails his conviction under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”) and the consequent sentence of life
imprisonment, upheld by the High Court.
3. Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submits
that all the four witnesses are related to the deceased. The two
JUGUT RAM v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
independent witnesses were not examined. The serological report with
regard to the blood group of the deceased matching that alleged to have
been found on the lathi have not been established. The recovery of the
lathi has not been properly proved. The deceased did not die immediately,
but succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The assault was at spur of
the moment with no premeditation. The appellant had also suffered
injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the State, Sri Sourav Roy opposing the
appeal submits that the deceased was in possession of the field. The
appellant was the aggressor. The deceased succumbed on the spot.  The
intention to cause death is apparent from the assault made on the head,
a sensitive part of the human body. The appellant cannot urge to have
acted in self defence as he was the aggressor. He relies on State of A.P.
vs. S. Rayappa, (2006) 4 SCC 512 and Laltu Ghosh vs. State of West
Bengal (2019) 15 SCC 344, to contend that the evidence of related
witnesses cannot b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.