caselaws.org

Supreme Court of India
Chandrakumar@Kali vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2020Author: R. Banumathi

Bench: R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna

1

NON-REPORTABLE

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)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

R. BANUMATHI,J.

Leave granted.

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
MADHU BALA
Date: 2020.03.04

accused with the help of other servants took the deceased to the
17:13:31 IST
Reason:

hospital where the deceased died on 20.10.1994. Initially the case

was registered under Section 307 IPC which was subsequently
2

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

years.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant-accused has preferred this

appeal.

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
3

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.

……………………………………………………J. [R.BANUMATHI]

NEW DELHI …………………………………………………..J.
3RD MARCH, 2020 [A.S.BOPANNA]

Comments

Leave a Reply

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.