AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bibhas Ranjan De, J
The instant criminal revisional application has been preferred assailing the proceedings in connection with G.R. Case no. 139 of 2019 arising out of Sonamukhi Police Station Case no. 26 of 2019 dated 10.03.2019 under Sections 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) presently pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short CJM), Bishnupur, Bankura.
Brief facts:-
The impugned proceeding was put into motion by a written complaint dated 10.03.2019 made by the opposite party no. 2 herein (brother of the deceased) with the Officer-in-charge of Sonamukhi Police Station alleging inter alia that on 10.03.2019 at 09:00 hours a hot altercation took place between his brother namely Ram Chandra Ghosh (since deceased) and his neighbour Partha Ghosh regarding the positioning of the tractor of the petitioner in front of the house of the deceased brother of opposite party no. 2 which resulted in total blockage of the village road. During the altercation when the deceased asked the petitioner to remove the tractor from the road the accused along with others assaulted the deceased brother of the defacto complainant which resulted in his brother sustaining serious injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to Barjora Hospital where the attending doctor declared him as ‘brought dead’.
Over this written complaint Sonamukhi Police Station Case no. 26 of 2019 dated 10.03.2019 was started under Section 304/34 of the IPC.
Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted a charge sheet being no. 93 of 2019 dated 31.08.2019 under Sections 304/34 of the IPC against the petitioners herein.
Argument advanced:-
Ld. Counsel, Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has drawn my attention to the Post Mortem Report as well as statement of P.M. Doctor recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CrPC) and submitted that the cause of death was natural and death was not caused by any kind of injuries. Mr. Chatterjee has further submitted that the FIR discloses only an altercation between the parties and on the other hand allegation of assault has not been substantiated by any evidence collected during investigation.
In opposition to that, Ld. Counsel, Mr. Avishek Sinha, appearing on behalf of the opposite party has relied on the evidence collected during investigation.
Decision:-
Before delving into the merit of this case, it would be apt to reproduce Section 304 of the IPC which runs below:-
“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.—
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
Indian Penal Code recognizes two kinds of culpable homicide. First one is culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 of IPC and the other one is culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
Section 304 of IPC provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This Section prescribes two kinds of punishments in two different circumstances as under :-
9.1. If the act by which death is caused, is done with intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine or with both.
9.2. On the other hand if the act is done with knowledge i.e. likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.
In a case under first part of Section 304, intention is sine qua non. Such intention involves an expectation of the consequences without involving pre-meditation. Whereas in a case under second part of Section 304, the element of knowledge is mandatory. Such knowledge about death is likely consequence of the act done.
Therefore, first part of Section 304 of IPC deals with punishment for an act done with intention to cause death but without knowledge, whereas second part of Section 304 of IPC prescribes punishment for an act done with knowledge but without intention to cause death.
From the case at hand we have to find out the elements to constitute an offence under Section 304 of IPC.
In the matter at hand, Prosecution case revolved around an incident of altercation between the deceased and the petitioner. It was further alleged that petitioners assaulted the deceased which led to him sustaining serious injuries.
It is now well settled that in exercising power under Section 482 of CrPC this Court cannot only look into the written complaint but also the evidences collected during investigation including other circumstances.
After careful perusal of the evidence collected during investigation, I do not find evidence to substantiate the allegation of assault by any of the witnesses present over there at the place of occurrence. From the statement of witnesses it appears that at the time of incident there was a quarrel between the deceased and petitioners. Doctor in his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC specifically stated that the cause of death was due to ‘deceased condition of heart – a natural cause’. That statement of doctor was further ratified by the Post Mortem Report with the opinion of the medical officer as follows:-
“ Death was due to effects of deceased condition of heart – a natural cause.”
Statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC discloses nothing about any act done by the petitioner in terms of any intention or knowledge to establish the proximate cause of death of victim. That apart, there is no evidence on record to indicate that the petitioners had prior knowledge about the deceased condition of heart of the victim far to speak of any intention whatsoever.
Therefore, it would be unjustified to allow the trial to proceed any further against the petitioners.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case no. 139 of 2019 arising out of Sonamukhi Police Station Case no. 26 of 2019 dated 10.03.2019 stands quashed.
As a sequel, the revision application being no. CRR 2120 of 2021 is hereby allowed.
Connected applications, if there be any, stand disposed of accordingly.
Case diary be returned.
All parties to this revisional application shall act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.