New Delhi, Oct 14 “Just see the pathetic condition of the high court,” the Supreme Court on Wednesday remarked as it expressed displeasure over the Chhattisgarh High Court’s verdict setting aside an order of conviction for murder, holding the accused guilty of culpable homicide and reducing a life term to a ten-year sentence.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran issued notice to the state government and the accused, Chintamani alias Chintu Patel, and sought his response on why the order of the high court be not set aside and the judgment of the trial court convicting him for murder charges be restored.
“Just see the pathetic condition of the high court. The judges don’t know what Section 304 Part I and 304 Part II of the IPC are. You expect the judges to appreciate the evidence,” the bench told the counsel, appearing for the accused challenging the November 29, 2024 order of the high court.
IPC Section 304 Part I deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder involving intention to cause death or likely-fatal injury while IPC Section 304 Part II is culpable homicide not amounting to murder involving knowledge that the act was likely to cause death but has no such intention.
Chintamani through his legal-aid counsel contended that there was no evidence against him and the high court erred in its finding.
Justice Pardiwala told the counsel, “This is not the first judgment of this kind we are coming across. These are all principles of law which law schools teach in the very first year of the academic session itself.”
The bench ordered, “Let notice be issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the order of the high court should not be set aside, and the judgment and order passed by the high court holding him guilty of murder should not be restored. We shall reconsider this part having regard to the merits of the case.”
The top court told the counsel that the high court failed to consider the nature of fatal injuries and the manner in which these injuries occurred on the deceased.
It said the high court had failed to properly examine the circumstances of the crime and ordered, “The high court, as usual, in a very slipshod manner and without any understanding of law, partly allowed the appeal by altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of IPC. It appears the high court overlooked the nature of injuries, weapons used and the genesis of the occurrence.”
The case relates to the death of a woman, who was allegedly killed by Chintamani in an inebriated condition in February 2021 after he pushed her, which led to her fall on bricks.
The post-mortem report of the deceased said that the cause of death was due to a head injury leading to haemorrhagic shock caused by heavy force from a hard and blunt object, and the nature of death was homicidal in nature.
According to the police, the woman was found lying in a pool of blood after the accused had visited her home looking for her son. Before she died, she told her husband that the accused had assaulted her.
The trial court, after examining the witnesses, convicted Chintamani for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment in September 2022.
The high court, while considering the bail plea of the accused, decided to consider the matter on merit and concluded that it was not a case of murder but of culpable homicide.
In its order of November 2024, the high court said it is clearly proved that in the intervening time, the appellant (Chintamani) was drunk, and no motive has been proved by the prosecution nor there was any premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased, Raimoti Patel.
It said that some quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased. Out of that anger and in the heat of passion, the accused pushed the deceased due to which she fell over the brick and received lacerated wounds onr her head and face. Blood was coming out continuously, due to which she died, the high court further said.
“The appellant did not have any intention to cause death of deceased Raimoti, but by causing such injuries, he must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely to cause death of deceased Raimoti, as such, his case would fall within the purview of exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein completely satisfies the four necessary ingredients of exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv) the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner,” the high court said.
The high court directed the accused to serve the remaining period of the sentence and modified the trial court’s order.
(PTI News)
