Jugut Ram vs The State of Chhattisgarh

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

16 September 2020

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 616 of 2020

Result

Allowed

Bench

R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, Indira Banerjee

Citation

[2020] 6 S.C.R. 1140 : 2020 INSC 547

Headnote

Penal Code, 1860:

s. 304 (Part II) – Assault by Lathi – Resulting in death of the victim after one day – Conviction u/s. 302 IPC and life imprisonment by Courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: ‘Lathi’ is a common item carried by a villager – It cannot be called a weapon of assault simpliciter – In the case of an assault by ‘lathi’, it has to be ascertained whether there was intention or knowledge – The circumstances, manner of assault, nature and number of injuries will have to be considered cumulatively to decipher the intention or knowledge as the case may be – In the facts of the present case, conviction is altered to one u/s. 304 (Part II) – Accused since has already undergone maximum period of sentence, is directed to be set at liberty.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. A lathi is a common item carried by a villager in this country, linked to his identity. The fact that it is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter. In a case like the present, of an assault on the head with a lathi, it is always a question fact in each case whether there was intention to cause death or only knowledge that death was likely to occur. The circumstances, manner of assault, nature and number of injuries will all have to be considered cumulatively to decipher the intention or knowledge as the case may be. [Para 7][1142-G-H; 1143-A]

2. Accordingly the conviction of the appellant is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 (Part II) IPC. The appellant is in custody since 2004. He has already undergone the maximum period of sentence prescribed under the same. The appellant is, therefore, directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case. [Para 11][1144-E-F]

Chamru Budhwa v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 652; Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009)

15 SCC 635 : [2009] 13 SCR 548; Mohd. Shakeel v. State of A.P., (2007) 3 SCC 119 – relied on.

Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1958] SCR 1495; Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1995) SCC (Crl.) 165; Laltu Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (2019) 15 SCC 344; State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa, (2006) 4 SCC 512 : [2006] 2 SCR 200 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant assails his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”) and the consequent sentence of life imprisonment, upheld by the High Court. 3. Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that all the four witnesses are related to the deceased. The two independent witnesses were not examined. The serological report with regard to the blood group of the deceased matching that alleged to have been found on the lathi have not been established. The recovery of the

View Subscription Plans →