CHHERTURAM @ CHAINU versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 13 September 2022

1. We are faced with a case of patricide albeit both the fatherand the son were drinking together.

2. In the intervening night of 26[th] and 27[th] July, 2010, between10.00 pm and 12.30 am, the effect of alcohol may have resulted in aquarrel inter se the father and the son. The informer, Chamruram(PW-8), who is a neighbour, on reaching their house found the appellantassaulting his father, Goienda, the deceased, with Nagar Wood. Thedeceased fell to the ground and died. In the presence of the appellant’sbrother, PW-4, the appellant admitted that he killed his father. The FIRwas lodged by PW-8 in the Police Station Darima next morning and theappellant was arrested on 28.07.2010. On his disclosure statementregarding a lungi as well as Nagar Wood, the same were found at thecourtyard of his house and then sent to Forensic Science Laboratory,Raipur, for chemical examination.

3. It is necessary to set out the result of the autopsy, which opinedthat the injuries on the dead body were caused by some hard and bluntobject between half to two hours of death. These injuries were stated tobe fatal to life and sufficient to cause death to the deceased. Therewere eleven injuries found, as under:

“1. On the right side of the head of the deceased a torn woundwas present from front to back in the parietal region to a depth of2.5x1/4xinch to the depth of the bone;

2. On the front of the head 2x1 / 4 inch size dark blue torn woundwas there, on which swelling was present all around; A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

3. On the back left side of the head 4 inches rounded one contusionwas present, inside which blood clot was present; A

4. 3x2 inch size one contusion was present near left ear;

5. On the front and left side of the neck 6x4 inch part swelling andBblue colored contusions were present;

6. On the left cheek in the 4x4 inch part, there were contusionswith swelling;

7. The sternum bone on the chest was broken and there was ablood clot beneath it and there was a blue colour contusion, presentCon the chest;

8. On the right chest, in 4x4 inch area, contusion was present dueto which the second, third, fourth rib were broken and blood hadaccumulated beneath the broken rib; D

9. On the left chest there was a 6x2 inch size contusion presentand beneath it the first, second, third and fourth ribs were brokenand blood clot had accumulated beneath the broken ribs;

10. On the back and left abdominal side, 3 contusions were present,which were of 3X2, 5X2 inches and 7X2 inches in size; and E

11. The left eye was red in color and swelling was present in it.”

On an internal examination of the dead body, alcohol was foundpresent inside the deceased’s stomach. The cause of death was statedto be haemorrhage shock caused by the fatal injuries to the vital organsFand death was homicidal in nature.

4. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed beforethe Judicial Magistrate, 1[st] Class, Ambikapur, who committed the caseto the court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) on 08.03.2011Gand the prosecution examined ten witnesses.

5. The appellant pleaded innocence in his statement under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘theCrPC’) but admitted that he and the deceased were residing together inthe same house.H

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the judgment dated15.10.2012 convicted the appellant finding him guilty of causing ahomicidal death amounting to murder under Sections 302 of the IPC andsentenced to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in defaultto undergo additional RI for four months. It was opined that the case ofthe prosecution was based on direct evidence, judicial confession, seizurebased on appellant’s statement and on circumstantial evidence that thebody of the deceased was found in the appellant’s house.

7. On appeal being preferred before the High Court, the samewas dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2015. The evidencewas analysed threadbare including the statement of neighbours, whowere prosecution witnesses stating that the appellant and the deceasedwere residing in the same house and on being informed about the deathof the deceased, they went to the house and saw the dead body of thedeceased.

8. On the Special Leave Petition being preferred, notice was issuedon 18.07.2022. The only aspect, on which notice was issued on 18.07.2022,was on the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presentcase would fall under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and not Section 302of the IPC. The appellant had already undergone actual sentence oftwelve years by then.

9. Arguments have been heard on the aforesaid aspect after grantof leave on 22.08.2022.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:

10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both theappellant and the deceased were consuming liquor and started fightingunder the influence of liquor. In this altercation, the appellant picked upa Nagar Wood and inflicted few injuries to his father, which resultantlycaused death. There was no motivation and intention, which means thatthe essential ingredients of Section 300 of IPC were absent and theconviction under Section 302 of IPC was erroneous. Moreover, alcoholwas also found in the stomach of the deceased.

11. It may be noticed that the learned counsel for the appellantsought to contend on the aspect of whether the conviction could bebased on the last seen theory. However, that is not the aspect on whichnotice was issued.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASubmissions on behalf of the Respondent:

12. Learned counsel for the respondent sought to initially contendthat in case of the homicide committed within the privacy of a house,there is burden on the inmates to offer a cogent explanation for thecrime committed. The testimonies of witnesses established the crime.BOnce again, we have to say that that is not an aspect, which is requiredto be examined by us in view of the limited notice issued.

13. On the issue of the nature of offence, learned counsel for theState relied upon the judgment in Surain Singh v. State of Punjab[1] tomake out a case under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. SectionC300 reads as under:

“300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is causedis done with the intention of causing death, or—

Secondly—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodilyDinjury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of theperson to whom the harm is caused, or—

Thirdly—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injuryto any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted issufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—E

Fourthly—If the person committing the act knows that it is soimminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause deathor such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits suchact without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death orsuch injury as aforesaid.Fxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committedwithout premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upona sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undueadvantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.G

Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offersthe provocation or commits the first assault.”

14. In order to make out a case under Exception 4 aforesaid, itwas pleaded that there were two essential ingredients: (i) the accused H1 (2017) 5 SCC 796

did not act with premeditation, and (ii) the accused did not act in a cruelor brutal manner taking advantage of the situation. Hence the nature ofinjuries is an important factor in determining whether the death wascaused due to a sudden fight.

15. Learned counsel referred to the judgment in Manokaran v.State of T.N.[2], wherein this Court refused to entertain the case withinException 4 of Section 300 of the IPC due to the nature of injuries,which showed cruelty and brutality meted out to injure a person on theroot of the neck.

16. In applying the said principles to the facts of the present case,it is submitted that there were eleven injuries on the vital areas such asskull, chest and abdomen leading to breaking of sternum as well as second,third and fourth rib to demonstrate that the appellant acted with brutality.Hence, the present case cannot fall under the Fourth Exception to Section300 of IPC.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent also made a reference toSection 86 of the IPC, which reads as under:

“86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledgecommitted by one who is intoxicated.—In cases where anact done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledgeor intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shallbe liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as hewould have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thingwhich intoxicated him was administered to him without his”knowl-edge or against his will.

18. It was, thus, the submission made by the respondent that merelybecause the appellant and the deceased had consumed liquor together,full knowledge is liable to be attributed to the appellant and the defenceof being under the influence of liquor is not something which was availableto him.

19. It was further contended that the benefit of Section 300 Fourthlyextends to act committed by an offender with the knowledge that theresult of such acts will be death approximates a practical certainty/avery high degree of probability. The nature of injuries in the present caseindicates that death was a practical certainty. Therefore, the conviction 2 (2010) 15 SCC 562

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2022] 7 S.C.R.

Aof the appellant was liable to be sustained under Section 302 of theIPC.[3]

Conclusion:

20. We have examined within the limited contours of the aforesaidfacts and the principles of law enunciated. There is no doubt that theBparties were closely related, being the father and the son. There was noprior dispute. Liquor got the better of the appellant. That, however, is nodefence in view of Section 86 of the IPC.

21. We have to thus turn to the fact that there was no prior intentbut in the sudden fight, injuries were inflicted. It is necessary to look toCthe injuries in this behalf which had been enumerated hereinabove. Therewere eleven injuries! It is not only the number of injuries but where andin what manner they were inflicted, even if it is by a piece of NagarWood and not by a dangerous weapon. There were multiple injuries onthe head – on the right side, on the front side, on the back left side, nearDthe left ear, on the front and left side of the neck and on the left cheek.The sternum bone on the chest was broken and there was a blood clotbeneath it. On the right chest, 4X4 inch area contusion was present dueto which the second, third, fourth rib were broken and blood hadaccumulated beneath the broken rib. Similarly on the left chest, therewas a 6X2 inches size contusion. The contusions were also present onEthe back and left abdominal side. It is clearly a case of mercilessly beatingon all the vital parts of the body and reigning blows, albeit with a woodpiece, on head and on different parts of the head again and again. Withthese kinds of blows, there would be no possibility of the deceasedsurviving. Maybe it was under the influence of liquor, but the nature ofFblows was such that the endeavour was to end the life of the deceased,the father. It was certainly an act in a cruel and brutal manner takingadvantage of the situation even if there was no pre-meditation. Thefactual scenario would, thus, fall within the ratio of Manokaran[4] case.

22. Sympathy for the son in such a scenario would be misplaced.GThe victim was the father. The appellant must take the consequences ofsuch merciless attack on his father. There is no cause made out forapplication of Exception 4 of Section 300.

3 A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) 4 SCC 382H4 (supra)

CHHERTURAM @ CHAINU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

23. The only redeeming feature is that the appellant has alreadyundergone 12 years of sentence and on completion of the sentence, asper remission policy, he would be liable to be considered for release.The only aspect which we are inclined to consider is to issue a directionto the State to consider the case of the appellant for remission, the momenthe completes the mandatory sentence as per the policy for suchconsideration.

24. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid termsleaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Divya Pandey(Assisted by Deepak Panwar, LCRA)

Appeal disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H