In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a crucial judgement in the case of Kariman(Appellant) vs. State of Chhattisgarh. The case involves an appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Let’s delve into the details of this case and the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Facts
- The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for assaulting Dasmet Bai, causing her death.
- The FIR was lodged by the deceased’s uncle on the same day of the incident.
- Autopsy report revealed a bruise on the body of the deceased, leading to a fractured rib and fatal consequences.
- High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the lower court’s decision of convicting him for murder.
- The appellant, while in jail, sought legal aid from the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for filing a special leave petition.
- A free legal aid counsel was appointed to defend the appellant in the case.
- Condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition was granted due to the appellant’s lack of awareness about legal procedures while in jail.
- The appellant denied the prosecution’s case against him during the trial.
- No evidence was presented by the defence in the case.
- The incident occurred on 11th September 1999, where the appellant allegedly assaulted the deceased with fists and stones.
- Investigation, charge sheet, and committal of the case to the court followed the incident.
- Deceased Dasmet Bai was alleged to be living with the appellant as his second wife.
- The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC
- The appeal against conviction was rejected by the High Court on 27 June, 2016
- The present appeal challenges the High Court’s decision
- The Court issued limited notice on 21 July, 2023 to consider converting the conviction under Section 302 IPC to either Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC
Arguments
- Advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing the appellant, argued that the prosecution witness accounts only mentioned a sudden dispute between the accused and the deceased, followed by the accused chasing and hitting her with fists and slaps.
- He pointed out that as per Dr. R.K. Tripathi, the Medical Jurist who examined the deceased, only one injury was found, which was a bruise causing a broken rib and spleen laceration.
- The counsel emphasized that Dr. R.K. Tripathi did not indicate in his testimony that the injury was fatal.
- Hence, Shri Vijay Hansaria concluded that based on the medical evidence, the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC was not substantiated against the appellant.
- The State vehemently opposed the submissions made by the appellant’s counsel.
- The argument put forward by the State’s counsel was fervent and forceful.
- The State’s representative, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, strongly disagreed with the appellant’s contentions.
- The State did not support toning down the offence and reducing the sentence for the appellant.
Also Read: Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar vs. State of Karnataka
Analysis
- The appellant had no motive to hurt the deceased, as per the admitted case set out in the evidence of eye-witnesses.
- Some sudden quarrel had flared up between the accused and deceased, leading to the incident.
- No evidence was presented that the appellant’s niece, who lived with him, was ever treated with cruelty.
- The appellant picked up a stone nearby and hit the deceased after she fell down, but the genesis behind the incident was not disclosed by prosecution witnesses.
- The post mortem report noted a bruise on the left side of the deceased’s body, resulting in a fractured rib and laceration of the spleen.
- Dr. R.K. Tripathi asserted that the appellant had knowledge and intention to cause death based on witness testimony.
- The appellant and the deceased were living together as husband and wife by customary practices, as admitted.
- Both the accused and the deceased were seen consuming liquor, as admitted in cross-examination.
- The first information report was lodged by the deceased’s uncle, Budhram.
- The cause of death was determined to be shock due to internal bleeding from the fractured rib.
- The accused’s act falls under Part II of Section 304 IPC, which covers culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
- The act was done with knowledge that it was likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death.
- Dr. R.K. Tripathi did not state that the single injury caused was sufficient to cause death.
- The conviction under Section 302 IPC by the trial Court and High Court is deemed unsustainable.
- The accused did not have the intention to cause injury leading to death.
- The act does not fit under any clause of Section 300 IPC related to murder.
- The accused may have known the inflicted injury was likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death or such bodily injury.
Also Read: State of West Bengal vs. Jayeeta Das: Jurisdictional Issues in UAPA Cases
Decision
- Pending applications disposed of.
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Part II of Section 304 IPC.
- No fine imposed due to 17 years of sentence served.
- Appellant to be released if not required in any other case.
- Directed to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 304, Part II of IPC.
Case Title: KARIMAN Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2024 INSC 335)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002193-002193 / 2024
