Supreme Court of India
Hansaram vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 July, 2018Author: L. Nageswara Rao

Bench: [ M ], [ L ]



CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 341 of 2018






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
Date: 2018.07.04
14:50:49 IST

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

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

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

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


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.


New Delhi,
July 04, 2018



Leave a Reply

Sign In


Reset Password

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