Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL   No  . 341   of    2018

HANSARAM    ……… APPELLANT  

VERSUS

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH   .….. RESPONDENT  

J U D G M E N T    L.  NAGESWARA  RAO, J

1.  Dev Kumar Sahu (PW-6) lodged a First Information

Report at 8.10 a.m. on 11th November, 2005.  As per the

FIR, the Appellant was running a kirana shop in Basantpur

village.  The informant and his brothers were also residing

in  the  same  village.  There  was  a  scuffle  between  the

Appellant  and  Krishna  Kumar  Sahu  (PW-3)  on  10th

November, 2005 regarding non-payment of an amount of

Rs.130 by Krishna Kumar Sahu to the Appellant towards

purchase of some material from the shop.  The Appellant

and his son Virendra Sahu assaulted Krishna Kumar Sahu

(PW-3)  later  in  the  evening.   On  the  next  day  i.e. 11th

1

November, 2005, PW-6 and his brother Ram Kumar Sahu

(Deceased) went towards the Nala side for answering the

call of nature.  The Appellant hit Ram Kumar Sahu on his

head with a tangi near the field of Komal Singh.  The sharp

side of the tangi pierced the head of Ram Kumar Sahu who

fell  down.   PW-6 threw a stick that  hit  the hand of  the

Appellant when he started running away.   The tangi fell

down from the hand of the Appellant.  Ram Kumar Sahu

was  admitted  in  the  District  hospital.   The  tangi  was

produced at the police station.  PW-6 stated that Preetam

Lal Sahu (PW-8) also witnessed the incident. Ram Kumar

Sahu  was  referred  to  CIMS,  Bilaspur  where  he  was

admitted.  However  he  died  in  the  hospital  during  the

course of treatment.  A report for an offence under Section

307 IPC was initially registered in the Police Station– Janjgir

and after the death of Ram Kumar Sahu, the offence was

converted to Section 302 IPC.  The bloodstained soil was

seized and a spot map was prepared.  The clothes of the

deceased were also seized. The tangi was seized at the

instance  of  Dev  Kumar  Sahu  (PW-6).   A  spot  map  was

prepared by the Patwari and the seized property was sent

2

for  chemical  examination.   The  Accused  was  charged

under Section 302 IPC for the offence of murder.   

2. The trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section

302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and

also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- .  The High Court dismissed

the appeal  filed by the Appellant  against  the conviction

and sentence awarded by the trial Court.   Aggrieved, the

above Appeal is filed before this Court.   

3. The  Appellant’s  case  in  defense  is  that  on  11th

November,  2005  at  6.30  a.m.  he  went  to  the  Nala  to

answer call of nature with gudakhu and toothbrush.  Ram

Kumar Sahu (Deceased), Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW-3), Dev

Kumar Sahu (PW-6) and Shail Kumar (PW-9) were standing

near the fields of Komal Singh.  PW-3 was holding a tangi

and others  were  armed with  lathis.   The Appellant  was

afraid seeing them armed and pleaded that he should not

be attacked.  However, they started assaulting him from

the back side.  Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW-3) assaulted the

Appellant with a tangi on his head.  The Appellant tried to

protect himself by raising his hands but the tangi hit his

hand and head.  In the scuffle, the tangi came to his hands

3

and when he realized that he was going to be killed, he

swung the tangi in his defense which hit the Ram Kumar

Sahu(deceased)  on  his  head.   Thereafter,  the  tangi  fell

down  from  his  hand  and  he  became  unconscious.   He

became conscious  at  7.30 a.m.  and he sent  his  son  to

report the matter in the police station.  He was admitted in

a  local  hospital  and  later  taken  to  CMIS,  Bilaspur  for

treatment.  In the course of the treatment, he spent eight

days in the hospital.  He was admitted in the hospital for

treatment and discharged after eight days.

4. Dr. Hulesh Mandley (PW-19), who conducted the post-

mortem examination at 3.35 p.m. on 11th November, 2005,

deposed that there was a lacerated wound on the centre

part of the front head side which was 6.2 cms. in length

and  1  cm.  in  width.  According  to  him,  the  injury  was

caused  by  a  sharp-edged  weapon.   There  is  sufficient

evidence on record to show that there was a fight between

the  Deceased  and  his  brothers  on  one  side  and  the

Accused  on  the  other.   The  oral  evidence  which  is  in

conformity  with  the  medical  evidence  would  show  that

Ram Kumar  Sahu  died  due to  the  injury  caused  on  his

4

head.   The  Appellant  who  had  examined  himself  as  a

witness also stated that he swung the tangi in self-defense

when he was being attacked. There is no doubt in our mind

that  the  Accused  is  responsible  for  the  death  of  Ram

Kumar Sahu.   5. The case of the Appellant is that he wielded the tangi

in self-defense.  The tangi came into his hand when he was

trying to protect himself from being hit by Krishna Kumar

Sahu.  There is no dispute that the Appellant is also injured

on the head during the incident.  He was in the hospital for

a period of eight days for treatment.  Dr. O.P. Shrivastava

(PW-13) examined the Appellant on 11th November, 2005

and found an incised wound about 2” long in the mid part

of the head. He also found contusions at the bottom of the

left  thumb (about  1”  x 2”),  on the upper part  of  pelvic

region (about 6”) and below left the knee (about 1.5” x

0.5”).  He opined that the incised injury could have been

caused by the said tangi and the other contusions could

have been caused  by  the  seized  danda.   However,  the

prosecution  failed  to  explain  the  injuries  caused  to  the

Appellant.   

5

6. After  considering the material  on record,  we are of

the  considered view that  the  Appellant  is  not  liable  for

conviction under Section 302 IPC.  There is no evidence to

show  that  the  murder  of  Ram  Kumar  Sahu  was  a

premeditated one.  We are convinced that the Appellant

did  not  have  any  intention  to  kill  Ram  Kumar  Sahu.

However, Appellant swung the tangi which hit Ram Kumar

Sahu on his head and due to the said injury Ram Kumar

Sahu had died.  

7. In  conclusion,  the  Appellant’s  conviction  under

Section 302 IPC is set aside.  The Appellant is, however,

convicted under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and sentenced to

undergo  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  seven  years.   In

case, the Appellant has completed the sentence of seven

years, he may be released forthwith.  

8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.   

               ..............................................J. [ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]

               ...............................................J.               [ MOHAN  M.  SHANTANAGOUDAR ]

New Delhi, July 04, 2018  

6