The Chhattisgarh High Court has modified the conviction of Dilharan Sahu in a significant judgment, reducing his sentence from life imprisonment for murder to ten years for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad delivered this nuanced verdict in Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 2024, filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Janjgir.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a land dispute that escalated tragically. On June 29, 2022, the deceased, Dileram Sahu, attempted to block drainage water near his courtyard using mud and a spade. This led to a heated altercation with the appellant, during which Dilharan Sahu struck Dileram multiple times with a spade, inflicting fatal injuries. Subsequently, the appellant informed a witness, Girdhari Sahu, about the incident, leading to his arrest and prosecution.
The trial court convicted Dilharan Sahu under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000. Sahu challenged this decision before the High Court.
Legal Issues
1. Homicidal Nature of Death: The court first affirmed the finding of the trial court that the death was homicidal based on the postmortem report prepared by Dr. Iqbal Hussain, which indicated cerebral injury as the cause of death.
2. Authorship of the Crime: The court relied on eyewitness testimony from Rakeshwari Sahu, who confirmed witnessing the appellant attacking the deceased. This was corroborated by the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-2, Girdhari Sahu, and the recovery of a blood-stained spade, as per the forensic report.
3. Application of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC: The central issue was whether the appellant’s actions fell under Exception 1 of Section 300, IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide committed under grave and sudden provocation. The court referred to precedents such as K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra and Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, emphasizing the test of a reasonable person’s loss of self-control under grave provocation.
Court’s Observations
The Bench observed:
– “The appellant lost his self-control due to grave and sudden provocation during the land dispute, resulting in an act that lacked premeditation.”
– It was noted that while the appellant acted in the heat of the moment, he had the knowledge and intention that the injuries caused could lead to death.
The court concluded that the incident fell under Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC and thus warranted a conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC, rather than Section 302 IPC.
Judgment
The High Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for ten years while upholding the fine imposed by the trial court. The judgment highlighted the absence of premeditation and the proportionality of the retaliation to the provocation faced by the appellant.
