caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Hansaram vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 July, 2018Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: [ M ], [ L ]
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 341 of 2018
HANSARAM ……… APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH .….. RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J
1. Dev Kumar Sahu (PW-6) lodged a First Information
Report at 8.10 a.m. on 11th November, 2005. As per the
FIR, the Appellant was running a kirana shop in Basantpur
village. The informant and his brothers were also residing
in the same village. There was a scuffle between the
Appellant and Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW-3) on 10 th
November, 2005 regarding non-payment of an amount of
Rs.130 by Krishna Kumar Sahu to the Appellant towards
purchase of some material from the shop. The Appellant
and his son Virendra Sahu assaulted Krishna Kumar Sahu
Signature Not Verified
(PW-3) later in the evening. On the next day i.e. 11th
Digitally signed by
SANJAY KUMAR
Date: 2018.07.04
14:50:49 IST
Reason:
1
November, 2005, PW-6 and his brother Ram Kumar Sahu
(Deceased) went towards the Nala side for answering the
call of nature. The Appellant hit Ram Kumar Sahu on his
head with a tangi near the field of Komal Singh. The sharp
side of the tangi pierced the head of Ram Kumar Sahu who
fell down. PW-6 threw a stick that hit the hand of the
Appellant when he started running away. The tangi fell
down from the hand of the Appellant. Ram Kumar Sahu
was admitted in the District hospital. The tangi was
produced at the police station. PW-6 stated that Preetam
Lal Sahu (PW-8) also witnessed the incident. Ram Kumar
Sahu was referred to CIMS, Bilaspur where he was
admitted. However he died in the hospital during the
course of treatment. A report for an offence under Section
307 IPC was initially registered in the Police Station– Janjgir
and after the death of Ram Kumar Sahu, the offence was
converted to Section 302 IPC. The bloodstained soil was
seized and a spot map was prepared. The clothes of the
deceased were also seized. The tangi was seized at the
instance of Dev Kumar Sahu (PW-6). A spot map was
prepared by the Patwari and the seized property was sent
2
for chemical examination. The Accused was charged
under Section 302 IPC for the offence of murder.
2. The trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section
302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and
also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- . The High Court dismissed
the appeal filed by the Appellant against the conviction
and sentence awarded by the trial Court. Aggrieved, the
above Appeal is filed before this Court.
3. The Appellant’s case in defense is that on 11 th
November, 2005 at 6.30 a.m. he went to the Nala to
answer call of nature with gudakhu and toothbrush. Ram
Kumar Sahu (Deceased), Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW-3), Dev
Kumar Sahu (PW-6) and Shail Kumar (PW-9) were standing
near the fields of Komal Singh. PW-3 was holding a tangi
and others were armed with lathis. The Appellant was
afraid seeing them armed and pleaded that he should not
be attacked. However, they started assaulting him from
the back side. Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW-3) assaulted the
Appellant with a tangi on his head. The Appellant tried to
protect himself by raising his hands but the tangi hit his
hand and head. In the scuffle, the tangi came to his hands
3
and when he realized that he was going to be killed, he
swung the tangi in his defense which hit the Ram Kumar
Sahu(deceased) on his head. Thereafter, the tangi fell
down from his hand and he became unconscious. He
became conscious at 7.30 a.m. and he sent his son to
report the matter in the police station. He was admitted in
a local hospital and later taken to CMIS, Bilaspur for
treatment. In the course of the treatment, he spent eight
days in the hospital. He was admitted in the hospital for
treatment and discharged after eight days.
4. Dr. Hulesh Mandley (PW-19), who conducted the post-
mortem examination at 3.35 p.m. on 11th November, 2005,
deposed that there was a lacerated wound on the centre
part of the front head side which was 6.2 cms. in length
and 1 cm. in width. According to him, the injury was
caused by a sharp-edged weapon. There is sufficient
evidence on record to show that there was a fight between
the Deceased and his brothers on one side and the
Accused on the other. The oral evidence which is in
conformity with the medical evidence would show that
Ram Kumar Sahu died due to the injury caused on his
4
head. The Appellant who had examined himself as a
witness also stated that he swung the tangi in self-defense
when he was being attacked. There is no doubt in our mind
that the Accused is responsible for the death of Ram
Kumar Sahu.
5. The case of the Appellant is that he wielded the tangi
in self-defense. The tangi came into his hand when he was
trying to protect himself from being hit by Krishna Kumar
Sahu. There is no dispute that the Appellant is also injured
on the head during the incident. He was in the hospital for
a period of eight days for treatment. Dr. O.P. Shrivastava
(PW-13) examined the Appellant on 11th November, 2005
and found an incised wound about 2” long in the mid part
of the head. He also found contusions at the bottom of the
left thumb (about 1” x 2”), on the upper part of pelvic
region (about 6”) and below left the knee (about 1.5” x
0.5”). He opined that the incised injury could have been
caused by the said tangi and the other contusions could
have been caused by the seized danda. However, the
prosecution failed to explain the injuries caused to the
Appellant.
5
6. After considering the material on record, we are of
the considered view that the Appellant is not liable for
conviction under Section 302 IPC. There is no evidence to
show that the murder of Ram Kumar Sahu was a
premeditated one. We are convinced that the Appellant
did not have any intention to kill Ram Kumar Sahu.
However, Appellant swung the tangi which hit Ram Kumar
Sahu on his head and due to the said injury Ram Kumar
Sahu had died.
7. In conclusion, the Appellant’s conviction under
Section 302 IPC is set aside. The Appellant is, however,
convicted under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years. In
case, the Appellant has completed the sentence of seven
years, he may be released forthwith.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
……………………………………….J.
[ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]
………………………………………..J.
[ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ]
New Delhi,
July 04, 2018
6
Comments