CHHERTURAM @ CHAINUversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

210                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 210                 [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A                        CHHERTURAM @ CHAINU
                                        v.
                         STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 1317 of 2022)
B                            SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
           [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND PAMIDIGHANTAM
                      SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
             Penal Code, 1860 – Murder – Exception 4 of s.300, s.82 –
      Exception 4 of s.300, when not applicable – Father and appellant-
C     son were drinking alocohol together, got into a fight – Appellant
      convicted for murder of his father – On appeal, held : Parties were
      closely related, being father and son – There was no prior dispute
      and liquor got the better of the appellant, however that is no defence
      in view of s.86 – There were eleven injuries – It is not only the
      number of injuries but where and in what manner they were inflicted,
D
      even if it is by a piece of ‘Nagar Wood’ and not by a dangerous
      weapon – It is clearly a case of mercilessly beating on all the vital
      parts of the body and reigning blows, on head and on different
      parts of the head again and again – It was certainly an act in a
      cruel and brutal manner taking advantage of the situation even if
E     there was no pre-meditation – Maybe it was under the influence of
      liquor, but the nature of blows was such that the endeavour was to
      end the life of the deceased – No cause made out for application of
      Exception 4 of s.300 – Factual scenario falls within the ratio of
      Manokaran v. State of Tamil Nadu.
F           Manokaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 15 SCC 652
            – relied on.
            Surain Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 5 SCC 796 :
            [2017] 2 SCR 824; A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya
            (1976) 4 SCC 382 : [1977] 1 SCR 601 – referred to.
G                            Case Law Reference
      [2017] 2 SCR 824                  referred to          Para 13
      (2010) 15 SCC 652                 relied on            Para 15
      [1977] 1 SCR 601                  referred to          Para 19
H
                                       210
   CHHERTURAM @ CHAINU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                                211


      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.                     A
1317 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Orders dated 08.04.2015 of the High
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1067 of 2012.
      Ashok Arora, Srilok Nath Rath, Jai Wadhwa, Dr. Sushil Balwada,
Advs. for the Appellant.                                                       B

       Gautam Narayan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Advs.
for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.                                                   C
      1. We are faced with a case of patricide albeit both the father
and the son were drinking together.
      2. In the intervening night of 26th and 27th July, 2010, between
10.00 pm and 12.30 am, the effect of alcohol may have resulted in a
                                                                               D
quarrel inter se the father and the son. The informer, Chamruram
(PW-8), who is a neighbour, on reaching their house found the appellant
assaulting his father, Goienda, the deceased, with Nagar Wood. The
deceased fell to the ground and died. In the presence of the appellant’s
brother, PW-4, the appellant admitted that he killed his father. The FIR
was lodged by PW-8 in the Police Station Darima next morning and the           E
appellant was arrested on 28.07.2010. On his disclosure statement
regarding a lungi as well as Nagar Wood, the same were found at the
courtyard of his house and then sent to Forensic Science Laboratory,
Raipur, for chemical examination.
       3. It is necessary to set out the result of the autopsy, which opined   F
that the injuries on the dead body were caused by some hard and blunt
object between half to two hours of death. These injuries were stated to
be fatal to life and sufficient to cause death to the deceased. There
were eleven injuries found, as under:
      “1. On the right side of the head of the deceased a torn wound           G
      was present from front to back in the parietal region to a depth of
      2.5x1/4xinch to the depth of the bone;
      2. On the front of the head 2x1 / 4 inch size dark blue torn wound
      was there, on which swelling was present all around;
                                                                               H
212            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A           3. On the back left side of the head 4 inches rounded one contusion
            was present, inside which blood clot was present;
            4. 3x2 inch size one contusion was present near left ear;
            5. On the front and left side of the neck 6x4 inch part swelling and
B           blue colored contusions were present;
            6. On the left cheek in the 4x4 inch part, there were contusions
            with swelling;
            7. The sternum bone on the chest was broken and there was a
            blood clot beneath it and there was a blue colour contusion, present
C
            on the chest;
            8. On the right chest, in 4x4 inch area, contusion was present due
            to which the second, third, fourth rib were broken and blood had
            accumulated beneath the broken rib;
D           9. On the left chest there was a 6x2 inch size contusion present
            and beneath it the first, second, third and fourth ribs were broken
            and blood clot had accumulated beneath the broken ribs;
            10. On the back and left abdominal side, 3 contusions were present,
            which were of 3X2, 5X2 inches and 7X2 inches in size; and
E
            11. The left eye was red in color and swelling was present in it.”
             On an internal examination of the dead body, alcohol was found
      present inside the deceased’s stomach. The cause of death was stated
      to be haemorrhage shock caused by the fatal injuries to the vital organs
F     and death was homicidal in nature.
             4. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before
      the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ambikapur, who committed the case
      to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Section 302 of the
      Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) on 08.03.2011
G     and the prosecution examined ten witnesses.
            5. The appellant pleaded innocence in his statement under Section
      313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
      CrPC’) but admitted that he and the deceased were residing together in
      the same house.
H
   CHHERTURAM @ CHAINU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                               213
            [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

       6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide the judgment dated       A
15.10.2012 convicted the appellant finding him guilty of causing a
homicidal death amounting to murder under Sections 302 of the IPC and
sentenced to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default
to undergo additional RI for four months. It was opined that the case of
the prosecution was based on direct evidence, judicial confession, seizure
                                                                              B
based on appellant’s statement and on circumstantial evidence that the
body of the deceased was found in the appellant’s house.
       7. On appeal being preferred before the High Court, the same
was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2015. The evidence
was analysed threadbare including the statement of neighbours, who            C
were prosecution witnesses stating that the appellant and the deceased
were residing in the same house and on being informed about the death
of the deceased, they went to the house and saw the dead body of the
deceased.
       8. On the Special Leave Petition being preferred, notice was issued    D
on 18.07.2022. The only aspect, on which notice was issued on 18.07.2022,
was on the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the present
case would fall under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and not Section 302
of the IPC. The appellant had already undergone actual sentence of
twelve years by then.
                                                                              E
       9. Arguments have been heard on the aforesaid aspect after grant
of leave on 22.08.2022.
      Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:
      10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the           F
appellant and the deceased were consuming liquor and started fighting
under the influence of liquor. In this altercation, the appellant picked up
a Nagar Wood and inflicted few injuries to his father, which resultantly
caused death. There was no motivation and intention, which means that
the essential ingredients of Section 300 of IPC were absent and the
conviction under Section 302 of IPC was erroneous. Moreover, alcohol          G
was also found in the stomach of the deceased.
      11. It may be noticed that the learned counsel for the appellant
sought to contend on the aspect of whether the conviction could be
based on the last seen theory. However, that is not the aspect on which
notice was issued.                                                            H
214               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A              Submissions on behalf of the Respondent:
             12. Learned counsel for the respondent sought to initially contend
      that in case of the homicide committed within the privacy of a house,
      there is burden on the inmates to offer a cogent explanation for the
      crime committed. The testimonies of witnesses established the crime.
B     Once again, we have to say that that is not an aspect, which is required
      to be examined by us in view of the limited notice issued.
             13. On the issue of the nature of offence, learned counsel for the
      State relied upon the judgment in Surain Singh v. State of Punjab1 to
      make out a case under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. Section
C     300 reads as under:
               “300. Murder.—Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
               culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused
               is done with the intention of causing death, or—
               Secondly —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily
D              injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the
               person to whom the harm is caused, or—
               Thirdly —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury
               to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
               sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
E
               Fourthly —If the person committing the act knows that it is so
               imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death
               or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such
               act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
               such injury as aforesaid.
F
               xxxx               xxxx             xxxx             xxxx
               Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed
               without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon
               a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue
               advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
G
               Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers
               the provocation or commits the first assault.”
            14. In order to make out a case under Exception 4 aforesaid, it
      was pleaded that there were two essential ingredients: (i) the accused
H     1
          (2017) 5 SCC 796
     CHHERTURAM @ CHAINU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                                215
              [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

did not act with premeditation, and (ii) the accused did not act in a cruel      A
or brutal manner taking advantage of the situation. Hence the nature of
injuries is an important factor in determining whether the death was
caused due to a sudden fight.
       15. Learned counsel referred to the judgment in Manokaran v.
State of T.N.2, wherein this Court refused to entertain the case within          B
Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC due to the nature of injuries,
which showed cruelty and brutality meted out to injure a person on the
root of the neck.
        16. In applying the said principles to the facts of the present case,
it is submitted that there were eleven injuries on the vital areas such as       C
skull, chest and abdomen leading to breaking of sternum as well as second,
third and fourth rib to demonstrate that the appellant acted with brutality.
Hence, the present case cannot fall under the Fourth Exception to Section
300 of IPC.
      17. Learned counsel for the respondent also made a reference to            D
Section 86 of the IPC, which reads as under:
         “86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge
         committed by one who is intoxicated.—In cases where an
         act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge
         or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall   E
         be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he
         would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing
         which intoxicated him was administered to him without his
         knowl-edge or against his will.”
       18. It was, thus, the submission made by the respondent that merely       F
because the appellant and the deceased had consumed liquor together,
full knowledge is liable to be attributed to the appellant and the defence
of being under the influence of liquor is not something which was available
to him.
       19. It was further contended that the benefit of Section 300 Fourthly
                                                                                 G
extends to act committed by an offender with the knowledge that the
result of such acts will be death approximates a practical certainty/a
very high degree of probability. The nature of injuries in the present case
indicates that death was a practical certainty. Therefore, the conviction

2
    (2010) 15 SCC 562                                                            H
216                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     of the appellant was liable to be sustained under Section 302 of the
      IPC. 3
               Conclusion:
             20. We have examined within the limited contours of the aforesaid
      facts and the principles of law enunciated. There is no doubt that the
B     parties were closely related, being the father and the son. There was no
      prior dispute. Liquor got the better of the appellant. That, however, is no
      defence in view of Section 86 of the IPC.
             21. We have to thus turn to the fact that there was no prior intent
      but in the sudden fight, injuries were inflicted. It is necessary to look to
C     the injuries in this behalf which had been enumerated hereinabove. There
      were eleven injuries! It is not only the number of injuries but where and
      in what manner they were inflicted, even if it is by a piece of Nagar
      Wood and not by a dangerous weapon. There were multiple injuries on
      the head – on the right side, on the front side, on the back left side, near
D     the left ear, on the front and left side of the neck and on the left cheek.
      The sternum bone on the chest was broken and there was a blood clot
      beneath it. On the right chest, 4X4 inch area contusion was present due
      to which the second, third, fourth rib were broken and blood had
      accumulated beneath the broken rib. Similarly on the left chest, there
      was a 6X2 inches size contusion. The contusions were also present on
E     the back and left abdominal side. It is clearly a case of mercilessly beating
      on all the vital parts of the body and reigning blows, albeit with a wood
      piece, on head and on different parts of the head again and again. With
      these kinds of blows, there would be no possibility of the deceased
      surviving. Maybe it was under the influence of liquor, but the nature of
F     blows was such that the endeavour was to end the life of the deceased,
      the father. It was certainly an act in a cruel and brutal manner taking
      advantage of the situation even if there was no pre-meditation. The
      factual scenario would, thus, fall within the ratio of Manokaran4 case.
            22. Sympathy for the son in such a scenario would be misplaced.
G     The victim was the father. The appellant must take the consequences of
      such merciless attack on his father. There is no cause made out for
      application of Exception 4 of Section 300.


      3
          A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) 4 SCC 382
      4
H         (supra)
   CHHERTURAM @ CHAINU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                                  217
            [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

        23. The only redeeming feature is that the appellant has already         A
undergone 12 years of sentence and on completion of the sentence, as
per remission policy, he would be liable to be considered for release.
The only aspect which we are inclined to consider is to issue a direction
to the State to consider the case of the appellant for remission, the moment
he completes the mandatory sentence as per the policy for such
                                                                                 B
consideration.
      24. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Divya Pandey                                               Appeal disposed of.   C
(Assisted by Deepak Panwar, LCRA)




                                                                                 D




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H