Supreme Court of India
Chandrakumar@Kali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2020Author: R. Banumathi
Bench: R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2020
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 2749 OF 2019)
CHANDRAKUMAR @ KALI …APPELLANT(S)
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order
dated 18.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in CRA
No. 1574 of 1996 in and by which the High Court has reduced the
sentence awarded to the appellant from ten years to five years.
3. On 24.09.1994 at about 05.30 a.m. in a wordy quarrel, when the
deceased Munna was milking the buffalo in Kanhaiya Dairy owned by
the appellant-accused, the appellant-accused came to the deceased
and asked to show the bucket of milk. On seeing the less quantity
of milk, the appellant-accused is alleged to have beaten the
deceased with bamboo stick on the head due to which the deceased
fell down on the ground and became unconscious. The appellant-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
accused with the help of other servants took the deceased to the
hospital where the deceased died on 20.10.1994. Initially the case
was registered under Section 307 IPC which was subsequently
altered to Section 302 IPC.
4. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Trial Court observed
that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause
the death of deceased. The Trial Court vide judgment dated
16.09.1996 convicted the appellant-accused under Section 304 Part-
II and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment.
5. In appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court,
the High Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from ten years to five
6. Being aggrieved, the appellant-accused has preferred this
7. We have heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. Ravi Prakash
Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-
State of Madhya Pradesh.
8. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant submitted that though in SLP grounds
various contentions have been raised assailing the conviction but
when we have heard the matter, learned senior counsel mainly
confined his submissions only on the question of sentence. It is
also submitted that the appellant-accused has two daughters of
marriageable age viz. 19 and 21 years and there is no male member
in the family to take care of the family and also of the daughters.
9. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
and also the submissions of learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant-accused, we reduce the sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the appellant from five years to two years.
10. The appeal is partly allowed.
11. Since the above order is passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the same may not be quoted as a
precedent in any other case.
NEW DELHI …………………………………………………..J.
3RD MARCH, 2020 [A.S.BOPANNA]