DEVENDRA KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

                 [2024] 11 S.C.R. 523 : 2024 INSC 841

                         Devendra Kumar & Ors.
                                    v.
                          State of Chhattisgarh
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 328 of 2015)
                             06 November 2024
             [B.R. Gavai,* Prashant Kumar Mishra and
                      K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the conviction would fall for the offence punishable
       u/s.302 IPC or under a lesser offence.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 304 Part I, 302, 307 read with s.34 –
       Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder –
       Previous enmity between the families of the appellants and
       the victim – Appellants assaulted the victim with weapons
       after making a threat that they would kill him and later the
       victim succumbed to his injuries – Courts below convicted
       the appellants u/s.302 and s.307 rw s.34 and sentenced
       accordingly – Interference with:
       Held: Evidence of the medical expert that the death of the
       deceased was homicidal death does not call for interference – In
       view of the credible testimony of the eyewitnesses, no reason to
       interfere with the finding of the courts below that it is on account
       of the injuries caused by the appellants that the deceased had
       died – There was previous enmity between the parties – From
       the evidence of Sarpanch of the village it is clear that there was
       a quarrel between the appellants and the deceased – Weapons
       used by the accused persons are axe and sticks, which are
       commonly used by the agriculturists – No material on record to
       show that there was any premeditation – Taking into consideration
       all these aspects, the possibility of offence being committed by
       the appellants without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat
       of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out – From
       the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, it cannot be
       said that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in
* Author
524                                                            [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                                Digital Supreme Court Reports


       a cruel or unusual manner – Thus, appellants entitled to benefit
       of doubt – Conviction of appellants u/s.302 altered to the one
       under Part I of s.304 – Appellants sentenced to the period already
       undergone. [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 23]

                                                 List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860.
                                            List of Keywords
       Previous enmity; Making threat of killing; Evidence; Medical
       expert; Homicidal death; Credible testimony; Eyewitnesses;
       Quarrel; Premeditation; Premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of
       passion upon a sudden quarrel; Undue advantage; Acted in cruel
       or unusual manner; Benefit of doubt.
                                          Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 328
       of 2015
       From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2010 of the High Court
       of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA No. 15 of 2004
                                      Appearances for Parties
       Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva (A.C.), Adv. for the Appellants.
       Ravi Kumar Sharma, D.A.G., Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Piyush Yadav,
       Ms. Akanksha Singh, Praphull Kumar, Prashant Singh, Advs. for
       the Respondent.
                        Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                                 Judgment
       B.R. Gavai, J.
1.     This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2010
       passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at
       Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2004 whereby the High Court
       dismissed the Criminal Appeal preferred by the present appellants and
       upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 17th October, 2003
       passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kawardha (CG)1
       in S.T. No. 50 of 2003.


1    Hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                        525

                 Devendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh


2.     The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:-
       2.1 On 20th December 2002, at about 11 a.m., a complaint was
           lodged by one Dhannu Das (PW-2), the shopkeeper of a betel
           shop at Village Chhirha who had witnessed an incident near his
           shop wherein the appellants had assaulted the deceased, namely
           Bahal, with lathis, a rod and an axe after making a threat that
           they would kill him. On the receipt of the complaint, the Police
           Station at Kawardha registered a First Information Report2 being
           Crime No. 262 of 2002 under Section 307 read with Section 34
           of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 against the appellants.
       2.2 Pertinently, prior to the occurrence of the incident which
           ultimately led to this criminal appeal, a land dispute relating to
           certain agricultural land and crops therein was pending between
           the families of the present appellants and the deceased. In the
           pending lis, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had passed an order
           in Criminal Case No. 216 of 2003 titled Bahalram v. Devendra
           on 17th December 2002, thereby closing the proceedings
           under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
           in view of the order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh
           at Bilaspur, directing the maintenance of status quo in respect
           of the agricultural fields which were in the possession of the
           present appellants.
       2.3 According to the prosecution story, at about 9 a.m. on
           20th December 2002, Rajni Bai (PW-1) and her son Bahal,
           the deceased, reached Village Chhirha, having walked their
           way from Kawardha. Upon reaching Village Chhirha, the
           deceased stopped near the betel shop of Dhannu Das (PW-2).
           The deceased was showing the order passed by the Sub-
           Divisional Magistrate dated 17th December 2002 to Ghurwaram
           Patel (PW-4), the Sarpanch of Village Chhirha, when the present
           appellants arrived at the scene. Appellant No.1-Devendra and
           Appellant No. 2-Rohit were armed with lathis whereas Appellant
           No. 3-Banauram was carrying an axe and Appellant No.4-
           Kuleshwar was carrying a rod. After warning the deceased that
           they would kill him that day since he always quarreled in the


2    “FIR” for short
3    “IPC” for short
526                                                        [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


            land matter and created litigation, the appellants engaged in a
            mar-peet with the deceased, resulting in several injuries being
            caused to the deceased. On seeing this, Rajni Bai (PW-1)
            intervened which led the appellants to fight with her as well
            whereupon she sustained several injuries as well. On the same
            day, at about 1:15 p.m., during the course of the treatment, the
            deceased succumbed to his injuries.
       2.4 Subsequently, the post-mortem was conducted wherein it was
           concluded that cause of death was coma caused by internal
           haemorrhage which was in turn caused by a fracture in the
           head leading to a brain injury.
       2.5 Upon the conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was
           filed before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha.
           Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court,
           the same came to be committed to the trial court.
       2.6 Charges came to be filed by the trial court under Section 302
           read with Section 34 of the IPC and in the alternate, Section 307
           read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants pleaded not
           guilty and claimed to be tried.
       2.7 The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to bring home the
           guilt of the appellants. In their defence, the appellants denied
           the charges and stated that they had been falsely implicated
           owing to the agricultural land dispute.
       2.8 At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found that the
           prosecution had proved the case against the appellants and
           accordingly, convicted them under Section 302 and Section 307
           read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo
           imprisonment for life.
       2.9 Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred a Criminal
           Appeal before the High Court. The High Court vide the impugned
           judgment and order dismissed the Criminal Appeal and confirmed
           the order of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.
3.     Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
4.     We have heard Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, learned Amicus
       Curiae, and Mr. Ravi Kumar Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate
       General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Chhattisgarh.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                       527

            Devendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh


5.   Learned Amicus Curiae submits that it is an admitted fact that there
     has been a previous enmity between the family of the appellants
     and the family of the deceased. It is submitted that admittedly the
     appellants were in possession of the disputed land. However, the
     deceased was making an attempt to dispossess the appellants from
     the said land. It is submitted that one month prior to the date of the
     incident, the wife of the appellant No.1-Devendra Kumar lodged an
     FIR against the deceased with regard to forcible dispossession. It is,
     therefore, submitted that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
6.   Learned Amicus Curiae, in the alternative, submitted that the
     possibility of the deceased trying to dispossess the appellants from
     the land in question and the appellants committing the crime without
     premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden
     quarrel cannot be denied. It is, therefore, submitted that the offence,
     at the most, would fall under Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC.
7.   Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the contrary, submits
     that both the learned trial court as well as the High Court, on correct
     appreciation of the evidence, have convicted the appellants for the
     offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It is, therefore,
     submitted that no interference would be warranted.
8.   It is further submitted that the present case is a case of direct
     evidence wherein a number of eyewitnesses have supported the
     prosecution version.
9.   With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have
     perused the evidence placed on record.
10. From the evidence of the medical expert Dr. N.K. Yadu (PW-6), we
    do not find that any interference is warranted with the finding that
    the death of the deceased Bahal was homicidal death. The only
    question would be as to whether the conviction would fall for the
    offence punishable under Section 302 IPC or under a lesser offence.
11. Rajni Bai (PW-1) is the mother of the deceased Bahal. She has
    stated that on the date of the incident, when the deceased was
    showing the case related documents to Sarpanch, she saw the
    accused persons assaulting her son. She has also stated that the
    accused Devendra Kumar (Appellant No.1 herein) had assaulted
    her with bamboo stick.
528                                                         [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


12. The fact regarding the previous enmity and the ongoing dispute
    between the husband of Rajni Bai (PW-1) and the accused
    No. 1-Devendra Kumar and others has not been denied by her. She
    has also admitted in her cross-examination that the fight took place
    between her son and the appellants herein near the cart.
13. Rajni Bai’s (PW-1’s) evidence is corroborated by Dhannu Das (PW-2).
    He has stated in his cross-examination that his shop and the field of
    Devendra Kumar and others are adjacent to it. He has also admitted
    the fact regarding Devendra Kumar and others were cultivating the
    land adjacent to his shop.
14. Pusau (PW-3)-mason has also supported the prosecution version.
15. Ghurwaram (PW-4)-Sarpanch of the village has also supported the
    prosecution version. He has admitted in his cross-examination that
    when the deceased had come to him, he had read out the order of
    the SDO Rasandigoth and told him that he will harvest the crop of
    half the land.
16. In view of the credible testimony of the eyewitnesses, we have no
    reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court as well as the High
    Court that it is on account of the injuries caused by the appellants
    that the deceased had died.
17. The next question that requires to be considered is whether the case
    would fall under Section 302 IPC or not.
18. It is not in dispute that there was previous enmity between the parties.
    The accused persons were in possession of the land in question.
    A month prior to the date of the incident, an FIR was lodged by the
    wife of the appellant No.1-Devendra Kumar against the deceased
    since he had tried to dispossess the appellants.
19. From the evidence placed on record, specifically the evidence of
    Dhannu Das (PW-2) in the presence of whom the incident has
    occurred, it is clear that the place of the incident is adjacent to
    the field in possession of the appellants. From the evidence of
    Ghurwaram (PW4)-the Sarpanch of the village also it is clear that
    there was a quarrel between the appellants and the deceased. The
    weapons used by the accused persons are axe and sticks, which
    are commonly used by the agriculturists. There is no material on
    record to show that there is any premeditation.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                        529

               Devendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh


20. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the possibility of offence
    being committed by the appellants without premeditation in a sudden
    fight in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled
    out. From the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, it
    cannot be said that the appellants have taken undue advantage or
    acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
21. In that view of the matter, we find that the appellants would be entitled
    to benefit of doubt and the conviction under Section 302 IPC needs
    to be altered to the one under Part I of Section 304 IPC.
22. We are, therefore, inclined to partly allow the present appeal.
23. In the result, we pass the following order:
     (i)     The appeal is partly allowed.
     (ii)    The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is
             altered to the one under Part I of Section 304 IPC.
     (iii) The appellants have already undergone a sentence of more
           than 12 years prior to their release on bail by the order of this
           Court dated 17th February 2015. We find that the said sentence
           would subserve the ends of justice. Therefore, the appellants
           are sentenced to the period already undergone.
     (iv) The bail bonds, if any shall stand discharged.
24. We place on record our deep appreciation to Mr. Vikrant Narayan
    Vasudeva, learned Amicus Curiae for the valuable assistance
    rendered.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain