Supreme Court of India
JUGUT RAM versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 16 September 2020
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 1140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
A
JUGUT RAM
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2020)
BSEPTEMBER 16, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA ANDINDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
C
Cs. 304 (Part II) – Assault by Lathi – Resulting in death of thevictim after one day – Conviction u/s. 302 IPC and life imprisonmentby Courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: ‘Lathi’ is acommon item carried by a villager – It cannot be called a weaponof assault simpliciter – In the case of an assault by ‘lathi’, it has tobe ascertained whether there was intention or knowledge – TheDcircumstances, manner of assault, nature and number of injurieswill have to be considered cumulatively to decipher the intention orknowledge as the case may be – In the facts of the present case,conviction is altered to one u/s. 304 (Part II) – Accused since hasalready undergone maximum period of sentence, is directed to beEset at liberty.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. A lathi is a common item carried by a villager inthis country, linked to his identity. The fact that it is also capableof being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weaponFof assault simpliciter. In a case like the present, of an assault onthe head with a lathi, it is always a question fact in each casewhether there was intention to cause death or only knowledgethat death was likely to occur. The circumstances, manner ofassault, nature and number of injuries will all have to be consideredGcumulatively to decipher the intention or knowledge as the casemay be. [Para 7][1142-G-H; 1143-A]
2. Accordingly the conviction of the appellant is altered fromSection 302 IPC to Section 304 (Part II) IPC. The appellant is incustody since 2004. He has already undergone the maximumHperiod of sentence prescribed under the same. The appellant is,
therefore, directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless wantedin any other case. [Para 11][1144-E-F]
Chamru Budhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954SC 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; LaltuGhosh v. State of West Bengal (2019) 15 SCC 344; Stateof A.P. v. S. Rayappa, (2006) 4 SCC 512 : [2006] 2SCR 200 – referred to.
CaseLawReference
[1958] SCR 1495referred toPara 7[2009] 13 SCR 548relied onPara 9(2007) 3 SCC 119relied onPara 9(2019) 15 SCC 344referred toPara 10[2006] 2 SCR 200referred toPara 10
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.616 of 2020
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2010 of the High Courtof 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.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
7
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant assails his conviction under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”) and the consequent sentence of lifeimprisonment, upheld by the High Court.
3. Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submitsthat all the four witnesses are related to the deceased. The two A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aindependent witnesses were not examined. The serological report withregard to the blood group of the deceased matching that alleged to havebeen found on the lathi have not been established. The recovery of thelathi has not been properly proved. The deceased did not die immediately,but succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. The assault was at spur ofthe moment with no premeditation. The appellant had also sufferedBinjuries.
4. Learned counsel for the State, Sri Sourav Roy opposing theappeal submits that the deceased was in possession of the field. Theappellant was the aggressor. The deceased succumbed on the spot. Theintention to cause death is apparent from the assault made on the head,Ca sensitive part of the human body. The appellant cannot urge to haveacted 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 WestBengal (2019) 15 SCC 344, to contend that the evidence of relatedwitnesses cannot be discarded.D5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Thereexisted a civil land dispute between the parties. The occurrence is statedto have taken place on 23.11.2001 at about 02.00 P.M.while the deceasedwas harvesting crops. The appellant assaulted him with a lathi on thehead. The deceased expired in the hospital the next day at about 07.45EP.M. The post mortem report proved by the Doctor, P.W. 13 found twocontusions on the left and right parietal portion and fracture on the leftparietal bone opining it to be dangerous to life. Other injured witnesseshave confirmed that the appellant also suffered injuries in the occurrence.
6. The High Court on appreciation of evidence has come to theFconclusion that the assault was not premeditated but had taken place ina heat of passion due to a land dispute. If the appellant had the intention,nothing prevented him from further assaulting the deceased. Nonethelessit maintained the sentence of the appellant under Section 302, IPCbecause death had taken place pursuant to the assault by him.
G7. 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 aweapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter. In acase like the present, of an assault on the head with a lathi, it is alwaysa question fact in each case whether there was intention to cause deathor only knowledge that death was likely to occur. The circumstances,Hmanner of assault, nature and number of injuries will all have to be considered cumulatively to decipher the intention or knowledge as thecase may be. We do not consider it necessary to dilate on the firstprinciples laid down in this regard in Virsa Singh vs. The State of Punjab,1958 SCR 1495, which stand well established. Suffice it to notice fromprecedents that in Joseph vs. State of Kerala, (1995) SCC (Crl.) 165,the appellant dealt two blows on the head of the deceased. The deceaseddied two days later. The post mortem report found lacerated injury onthe head and internal examination revealed fracture to the occipital boneextended up to the temporal bone. The High Court convicted the appellantunder Section 302 IPC holding that the injury caused by the lathi wassufficient to cause death of the deceased. This Court observed as follows:
“3. ….The weapon used is not a deadly weapon as rightlycontended by the learned counsel. The whole occurrence was aresult of a trivial incident and in those circumstances the accuseddealt two blows on the head with a lathi, therefore, it cannot bestated that he intended to cause the injury which is sufficient (sic).At the most it can be said that by inflicting such injuries he hadknowledge that he was likely to cause the death. In which casethe offence committed by him would be culpable homicide notamounting to murder. We accordingly set aside the conviction ofthe appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence ofimprisonment for life awarded thereunder. Instead we convictthe appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him tofive years’ RI.”
8. In Chamru Budhwa vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954SC 652, the appellant dealt a blow on the head of the deceased with alathi and which proved fatal. The injury was medically opined sufficientin the ordinary course to cause death. Conviction under Section 302,IPC followed. This court observed as follows:
“5. It now remains to consider whether the offence which hecommitted falls within the first part or the second part of Section304 of the Indian Penal Code. When the fatal injury was inflictedby the appellant on the head of the deceased by only one blowgiven in the manner alleged by the prosecution it could as well bethat the act by which death was caused was not done with theintention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as islikely to cause death. The act appears to have been done with theknowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without any A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
Aintention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likelyto cause death within the meaning of Part II of Section 304 of theIndian Penal Code.
6. We accordingly allow the appeal to this extent that the convictionof the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code andBthe sentence of transportation for life awarded to him will be setaside, but the appellant will be convicted of having committed theoffence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code andwill be sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.”
9. In Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 15 SCCC635, the deceased died three days later after an assault on the head witha lathi opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to causedeath. Holding that the assault was made on the spur of the momentwithout premeditation the conviction was altered from one under Section302 to Section 304 Part II and a sentence of seven years was handed.Similarly in Mohd. Shakeel vs. State of A.P., (2007) 3 SCC 119, theDappellant had caused only one injury and had suffered injury himselfalso. Altering the conviction from under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part II,the appellant was sentenced to the period undergone since 1999.
10. We do not consider that Laltu Ghosh (supra)and S. Rayappa(supra), with regard to credibility of related witnesses, have any relevanceEto the issue in question being decided by us.
11. We accordingly alter the conviction of the appellant from Section302 IPC to Section 304 Part II, IPC. The appellant is in custody since2004. He has already undergone the maximum period of sentenceprescribed under the same. The appellant is, therefore, directed to beFset at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case.
12. The appeal is allowed.
G
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeal allowed.
H