Skip to main content

A Case of Patricide

Image


On 13.09.2022, A division bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1317 of 2022 titled Chherturam @ Chainu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh has decided on a case of patricide, wherein, on the intervening night of 26th and 27th July 2010, between 10.00 PM and 12.30 AM, a quarrel broke out between the father and son(appellant) while they were drinking together. The informant (neighbour), on reaching their house found the appellant(son) assaulting his father with Nagar Wood. the deceased fell to the ground and died. During the investigation, the appellant made a disclosure statement, and pursuant to his statement a lungi as well as Nagar Wood were discovered. On an internal examination of the dead body, alcohol was found present inside the deceased’s stomach. The cause of death was stated to be haemorrhage shock caused by fatal injuries to the vital organs and the death was homicidal in nature. The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded innocence. After the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was found guilty of the charge and therefore sentenced to undergo RI for life. 

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court thereby dismissing the Appeal, the Appellant filed an SLP before the Supreme Court on the ground that the present case would fall under Section 304 Part-I and not Section 302 of the IPC.


Issue

Whether the present case would fall under Section 304 Part I or Section 302 of the IPC?


Court’s Observation

there was no prior intent but in the sudden fight, injuries were inflicted. It is necessary to look to the injuries on this behalf which had been enumerated hereinabove. There were eleven injuries! It is not only the number of injuries but where and in what manner they were inflicted, even if it is by a piece of Nagar Wood and not by a dangerous weapon. There were multiple injuries on the head – on the right side, on the front side, on the back left side, near the left ear, on the front and left side of the neck, and on the left cheek. The sternum bone on the chest was broken and there was a blood clot beneath it. On the right chest, 4X4 inch area contusion was present due to which the second, third, and fourth ribs were broken and blood had accumulated beneath the broken rib. Similarly, on the left chest, there was a 6X2 inches size contusion. The contusions were also present on the back and left abdominal side. It is clearly a case of mercilessly beating on all the vital parts of the body and reigning blows, albeit with a wood piece, on the head and on different parts of the head again and again. With these kinds of blows, there would be no possibility of the deceased surviving. Maybe it was under the influence of liquor, but the nature of blows was such that the endeavour was to end the life of the deceased, the father. It was certainly an act in a cruel and brutal manner taking advantage of the situation even if there was no pre-meditation. The factual scenario would, thus, fall within the ratio of the case of Manokaran Vs. State of TN, (2010) 15 SCC 562, wherein the Supreme Court refused to entertain the case within Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC due to the nature of injuries, which showed cruelty and brutality meted out to injure a person on the root of the neck. 


The Court further observed that Sympathy for the son(appellant) in such a scenario would be misplaced. The victim was the father. The appellant must take the consequences of such a merciless attack on his father. There is no cause made out for the application of Exception 4 of Section 300 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Advocates Vs. CAs/CSs/CMAs

This article deals with the exclusive right to practise law and tribunal representation and the principles relating to a Harmonious Construction of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013 Introduction  The ongoing controversy concerning the right of non-advocate professionals, namely Chartered Accountants(CAs), Company Secretaries(CSs), and Cost and Management Accountants(CMAs), to appear and argue matters before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) raises fundamental questions touching the statutory monopoly over the practice of law in India. This post examines the competing statutory claims under the Advocates Act, 1961 and Section 432 of the Companies Act, 2013, applies the doctrine of harmonious construction, and concludes that Section 432 does not, and constitutionally cannot, confer any independent or parallel right to practise law upon non-advocates before tribunals. Background of the Dispute Recently, t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Requirements for Criminal Liability under Sections 406 and 420 IPC

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Jain v. The State of Gujarat and Another (2025 INSC 614), delivered on May 1, 2025, is a significant exposition on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in cases where allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are deemed to be a misuse of criminal process for civil disputes. The judgment meticulously analyzes the alleged offenses' legal ingredients, the commercial transaction's factual matrix, and the documentary evidence, ultimately concluding that the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process. Factual Background The case arises from a commercial transaction between the appellant, Ashok Kumar Jain, a director of Maayu Import and Export Ltd., a Sri Lankan company, and the second respondent, a proprietor of Ansh Prints, a textile business in Surat, Gujara...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inter-State Arrests and the Cost of Ignoring Due Process

The Delhi High Court’s judgment authored by Dr. Justice Murlidhar, as he then was, in Sandeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), WP (Crl.) 2189/2018, neutral citation: 2019:DHC:6920-DB , is a clear reminder that problems in policing often arise not because the law is unclear, but because basic legal safeguards are ignored. The case shows how easily police action can cross constitutional limits when procedure is treated as a technicality rather than a duty. When a Complaint Turns into Illegal Detention   The case arose from an interfaith marriage between two adults who married of their own free will. The woman’s family opposed the marriage, and soon an FIR alleging kidnapping under Section 366 IPC was lodged in Uttar Pradesh. Acting on this, UP Police travelled to Delhi, entered the JNU campus, and took both the husband and wife back to Ghaziabad. None of the basic legal steps was followed. The local Delhi Police were not informed. No proper diary entries were made. The husband was not ...
Post a Comment
Read more