Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Avinash Datta Chavhan, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Trial No. 11/2017 for offences under Sections 304 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the former and six months for the latter. The prosecution case was that on 21 November 2016, the deceased Sawan along with the appellant and three others went to eat berry fruits in a field. Sawan climbed a tree and shook branches to bring down fruits. When he asked the appellant for fruits, the appellant refused, leading to a quarrel. The appellant threatened to kill Sawan and others, then lifted Sawan by the waist, threw him to the ground, breaking his sacred thread (Kardoda), and used the thread to strangulate Sawan, causing his death. The appellant also used a matchstick to check if Sawan was alive. The father of the deceased lodged a report on 23 November 2016, leading to registration of Crime No. 181/2016 under Sections 302 and 506 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The trial court framed charges under Sections 302 and 506 IPC, which the appellant denied. The defence was of denial and false implication. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 304 IPC (instead of 302) and Section 506 IPC. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimonies of eye witnesses Rupesh (PW-2) and Nitin (PW-3), and the medical evidence. The court found that the incident occurred during a sudden quarrel over a trivial issue (sharing of berries) without premeditation. The appellant did not take undue advantage or act in a cruel manner; the act of strangulation was a single act in the heat of passion. Therefore, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC was attracted, reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC. The court also upheld the conviction under Section 506 IPC for the threat to kill. The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC and six months under Section 506 IPC, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC - Sudden fight - Absence of premeditation - The appellant and deceased were friends who went to eat berries; a quarrel arose over sharing fruits, leading to a sudden fight where the appellant strangulated the deceased with a sacred thread. The court held that the incident occurred in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without premeditation, and the appellant did not act in a cruel or unusual manner, thus Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applied, reducing the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC (Paras 10-14). B) Criminal Law - Criminal intimidation - Section 506 IPC - Threat to kill - The appellant threatened to kill the deceased and others during the quarrel. The court upheld the conviction under Section 506 IPC as the threat was made in the presence of witnesses and constituted criminal intimidation (Para 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's act of strangulating the deceased with a sacred thread during a sudden quarrel amounts to murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, and whether the conviction under Section 506 IPC is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC and Section 506 IPC. The sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part I IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC was upheld, with both sentences to run concurrently.
Law Points
- Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
- Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
- Sudden fight
- Absence of premeditation
- Section 304 Part I IPC
- Section 506 IPC
