In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court revised the convictions of three individuals and a juvenile involved in a 2019 murder case. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, altered the charges from murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. The court cited the absence of premeditation and the occurrence of a sudden fight as key factors in its decision.
The appellants, Chovaram Dhruv (40), Laxman Dhruv (19), and Bheem Nishad (20), along with a juvenile, were accused of killing Rajendra Sen following a dispute over illegal liquor sales. The incident occurred in the Magarload area of Dhamtari District, Chhattisgarh, on January 9, 2019.
Case Background
The case, detailed in CRA No. 1471 of 2019 and CRA No. 506 of 2021, stemmed from a long-standing feud between the victim, Rajendra Sen, and the accused over the sale of illegal liquor. According to witness testimony, on the evening of January 9, 2019, an altercation escalated outside Rajendra’s house. During the confrontation, the juvenile delivered a fatal knife wound to the victim’s neck, resulting in his death due to excessive hemorrhage.
The trial court sentenced the adult accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, while the juvenile, tried separately under the Juvenile Justice Act, also received a life sentence from the Children’s Court.
Legal Issues
The High Court addressed several key legal issues:
1. Premeditation and Intent: The court examined whether the actions of the accused demonstrated a premeditated intention to commit murder or were the result of a sudden and spontaneous altercation.
2. Applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: This provision allows for the reduction of a murder charge to culpable homicide if the act occurred during a sudden fight, without premeditation, and without cruel intent.
3. Role of the Juvenile Justice Act: The case also tested the application of sentencing principles under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly concerning the juvenile accused.
Court Observations and Decision
After reviewing the evidence and arguments presented by counsel—Shri Shobhit Kosta for the appellants and Shri Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for the State—the High Court concluded that the fight was unpremeditated and the accused acted without cruelty.
The bench quoted legal precedents, including Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) and Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana (2009), emphasizing the need to assess intent, spontaneity, and the nature of injuries. The court remarked:
“The occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated, and the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”
The judges noted that the juvenile delivered a single knife blow during a heated exchange, while the other accused were unarmed and did not act cruelly. Consequently, the court ruled that the appellants’ actions fell within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, warranting a lesser charge.
The appellants’ convictions were revised to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC. They were sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment, with credit given for time already served. The juvenile’s sentence was similarly reduced, and he will complete the remainder of his sentence under the supervision mandated by the Juvenile Justice Act.
