Gyani Kapoor Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 1999
Petitioner: Gyani Kapoor
Respondent: State of Chhattisgarh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 976 of 1999
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 11, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Brawl between the accused and the deceased just outside the house of the deceased – Both persons fully drunk at the time of the incid-ent – Deceased, who was pushed down by the accused, ran over by a speeding truck and succumbing to injuries – At the autopsy con-ducted after almost twelve hours, the doctor who performed the autopsy also felt strong liquor smell from the dead body. Held, on such facts the accused cannot be convicted for the offence of murder since in all probabilities, the supervening event of the truck running over the deceased would not have been anticipated by the accused appellant.
Held:
PW1 admitted that both of them consumed alcohol though she did not admit in so many words that accused was fully drunk. But the fact remains, when the autopsy was conducted by the doctor on the next morning, he had a smell of alcohol from the dead body. Con-sidering the interval of almost 12 hours between the time of death and the time of autopsy, the smell of alcohol which the doctor felt would indicate that the deceased would have been drunk when the incident happened. If the condition of the appell-ant was not better on that aspect when the incident happened, it would have been a brawl between the two, or at least, it would have been only an act by which the appellant had pushed the deceased down on the road. PW1 did not say that appellant did it knowing well that the truck is almost near and speeding up. In all probabilities, the supervening event of the truck running over the deceased would not have been anticipated by the appellant. It would have happened all of a sudden by some misfortune. (Para 4)
On the aforesaid fact situation, it is difficult for us to con-firm the conviction for the offence under section 302 of the IPC. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Two inebriated persons engaged in a wrangle on the night of 8.4.1987 and one of them fell on the road just in front of the house and he was run over by a truck. This was treated as an act of culpable homicide committed by the appellant who is alleged to have pushed the deceased down on the road. The sessions court and the High Court convicted him under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal is at the instance of that convicted person by special leave.
2. There is no dispute that the deceased Botu was run over by a truck at about 10.30 p.m. on 8.4.1987 and died of serious inju-ries suffered thereby. Many of his bones were fractured. Those injuries would clearly account for being run over by a heavy vehicle.
3. The only witness, the evidence of whom prosecution could rely on in the endeavour to substantiate the case against the appell-ant, is PW1 – Shantibai who was the sister-in-law of the deceased Botu. What she said about the occurrence, in brief, is the fol-lowing:-
The deceased Botu was in liaison with a lady by the name Ashabai to the chagrin of the accused Gyani Kapoor. On the night in question, the accused went to the house of the deceased and called him out, questioned him about his improper conduct because Ashabai was treated by the accused more or less as a sister-in-law. After dragging the deceased out of the house, the accused pushed him down. Deceased fell on the road (presumably the road would have been just in front of the house). A truck came by that way and ran over the deceased.
4. The question is whether the appellant could be convicted under section 302 of IPC on the basis of the aforesaid version given by PW1, even if it is assumed that all what PW1 said in the court is true? A suggestion was made during cross examination of PW1 that both accused and the deceased were fully drunk at the time of the incident. PW1 admitted that both of them consumed alcohol though she did not admit in so many words that accused was fully drunk. But the fact remains, when the autopsy was conducted by the doctor on the next morning, he had a smell of alcohol from the dead body. Considering the interval of almost 12 hours between the time of death and the time of autopsy, the smell of alcohol which the doctor felt would indicate that the deceased would have been drunk when the incident happened. If the condition of the appell-ant was not better on that aspect when the incident happened, it would have been a brawl between the two, or at least, it would have been only an act by which the appellant had pushed the deceased down on the road. PW1 did not say that appellant did it knowing well that the truck is almost near and speeding up. In all probabilities, the supervening event of the truck running over the deceased would not have been anticipated by the appellant. It would have happened all of a sudden by some misfortune.
5. On the aforesaid fact situation, it is difficult for us to confirm the conviction for the offence under section 302 of the IPC.
6. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant. We acquit him and direct him to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case.
1. Two inebriated persons engaged in a wrangle on the night of 8.4.1987 and one of them fell on the road just in front of the house and he was run over by a truck. This was treated as an act of culpable homicide committed by the appellant who is alleged to have pushed the deceased down on the road. The sessions court and the High Court convicted him under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal is at the instance of that convicted person by special leave.
2. There is no dispute that the deceased Botu was run over by a truck at about 10.30 p.m. on 8.4.1987 and died of serious inju-ries suffered thereby. Many of his bones were fractured. Those injuries would clearly account for being run over by a heavy vehicle.
3. The only witness, the evidence of whom prosecution could rely on in the endeavour to substantiate the case against the appell-ant, is PW1 – Shantibai who was the sister-in-law of the deceased Botu. What she said about the occurrence, in brief, is the fol-lowing:-
The deceased Botu was in liaison with a lady by the name Ashabai to the chagrin of the accused Gyani Kapoor. On the night in question, the accused went to the house of the deceased and called him out, questioned him about his improper conduct because Ashabai was treated by the accused more or less as a sister-in-law. After dragging the deceased out of the house, the accused pushed him down. Deceased fell on the road (presumably the road would have been just in front of the house). A truck came by that way and ran over the deceased.
4. The question is whether the appellant could be convicted under section 302 of IPC on the basis of the aforesaid version given by PW1, even if it is assumed that all what PW1 said in the court is true? A suggestion was made during cross examination of PW1 that both accused and the deceased were fully drunk at the time of the incident. PW1 admitted that both of them consumed alcohol though she did not admit in so many words that accused was fully drunk. But the fact remains, when the autopsy was conducted by the doctor on the next morning, he had a smell of alcohol from the dead body. Considering the interval of almost 12 hours between the time of death and the time of autopsy, the smell of alcohol which the doctor felt would indicate that the deceased would have been drunk when the incident happened. If the condition of the appell-ant was not better on that aspect when the incident happened, it would have been a brawl between the two, or at least, it would have been only an act by which the appellant had pushed the deceased down on the road. PW1 did not say that appellant did it knowing well that the truck is almost near and speeding up. In all probabilities, the supervening event of the truck running over the deceased would not have been anticipated by the appellant. It would have happened all of a sudden by some misfortune.
5. On the aforesaid fact situation, it is difficult for us to confirm the conviction for the offence under section 302 of the IPC.
6. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant. We acquit him and direct him to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case.
