Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Pardeshi Ram vs State Of M.P.(Now Chhattisgarh) on 9 February, 2021
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Hemant Gupta, B.R. Gavai
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1730 OF 2015 PARDESHIRAM .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH) .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur on 4.8.2010 whereby an
appeal against the judgment of conviction and the order of
sentence dated 4.3.2003 was dismissed.
2. The appellant stands convicted for an offence under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1 for causing the death of Kartik
Signature Not Verified Ram in an incident which occurred on 30.5.2002 at Village
Digitally signed by R
Bhardao Para, PS Aurang, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The
1 For short, the ‘IPC’
deceased was the Uncle of the accused. The accused and the
deceased had a dispute on agricultural land before the incident.
The cause of the dispute was the raising of the wall which
infuriated the appellant on the refusal of the deceased to raise the
wall. An FIR was lodged based on the statement of Arjun (PW-1),
son of the deceased. As per the statement, on the date of the
incident, the deceased returned from his field after delivering
fertiliser on his Bullock Cart. The deceased was to take another
round to deliver fertiliser but in the meantime, the accused
quarrelled with the deceased on the issue of construction of the
wall. The dispute was pacified by Jagdish. However, after Jagdish
left, the accused climbed over the Bullock Cart of Kartik Ram and
assaulted him with a spade. The accused hit the deceased with a
stone on his head and as a result, the deceased died.
3. The prosecution examined Arjun (PW-1), son of the deceased,
Sukhbati Bai (PW-2), wife of the deceased, and Budhram (PW-3),
an acquaintance of the deceased. PW 3 turned hostile. The prose-
cution also examined Shankar Lal (PW-4), the nephew of the de-
ceased and the accused. He also turned hostile. The postmortem
of the dead body was conducted by Dr G.P. Chandrakar (PW-5). Ne-
tan (PW-6) is the Investigating Officer.
4. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde learned senior counsel for the appellant has
argued that the offence was committed without premeditation in
the sudden fight in the heat of passion and, thus, falls within Ex-
ception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The appellant and the deceased are
members of the family and that the dispute occurred on the ques-
tion of raising the wall. The appellant is alleged to have hit the de-
ceased with the Shovel, a common agricultural tool, and later
picked up a stone to hit the deceased. Such injuries were caused
in the heat of passion as is likely to cause death. Therefore, it will
be culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling within the
first part of Section 304 IPC. Such an argument was raised before
the High Court as well but the High Court did not agree with the
5. The accused is an agriculturist, and the Shovel is a part of an agri-
cultural tool that is possessed by agriculturists. The accused was
attributed with the first blow with the Shovel followed a hit by a
stone on the head of the deceased which was picked up from the
6. The accused and the deceased were from the same family. The
cause of provocation was sudden, without premeditation. We find
that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a case falling
under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. The injuries were inflicted
without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion
upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken ad-
vantage or acted cruelly or unusually. In this view of the matter,
we find that the appellant is liable to be convicted for an offence
under Section 304 Part I.
7. The appellant has served more than 18years of his jail sentence.
Therefore, keeping in view the period of custody undergone; the
relationship between the accused and the deceased and the back-
ground in which the injuries were caused, we are inclined to allow
this appeal partly. We thus convict the appellant for an offence un-
der Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence him to the sentence al-
ready undergone. He is to be released forthwith, if not wanted in
any other case.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
FEBRUARY 09, 2021.