The Supreme Court today (October 14) came down heavily on the Chhattisgarh High Court and observed that it has no understanding of the difference between Section 304 Part I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder with guilty intention) and Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder with guilty knowledge, but without the specific intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The sharp observations came from a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran in a plea filed by the convict challenging the High Court's order altering the conviction to Section 304, Part II.

To briefly state, the petitioner was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund, to undergo life imprisonment with fine.

As per the prosecution's case, a woman, Raimoti Patel, was found lying in a pool of blood under the bamboo tree. Upon being asked, she said that Chintamai(accused) assaulted her. Ultimately, she died. Her husband(the complainant) filed an FIR. Subsequently, after completion of the investigation, the Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 and eventually convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

He filed an appeal before the High Court, where the Court considered if his case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

It considered the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana(2009), State v. Sanjeev Nanda(2012), and Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh(2017) and stated that there is no motive on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. There was no intention to cause death, but by causing such injuries, he must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely cause death of the deceased.

It observed: "Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years."

The Court described the High Court's alteration as done without having any "understanding of law" and said:

"The petitioner went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court, as usual, in a very slipshod manner and without any understanding of law partly allowed the appeal by altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC."

It may be noted that this is not the first time Justice Pardiwala's bench has called out High Courts for their lack of understanding between Section 304 Part I and Part II. In 2023, a bench comprising Justice Pardiwala had comprehensively explained as to when Section 304, Part I or Part II applies.

In the judgment, it is stated that the first part of this section would apply when there is 'guilty intention,' whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is 'guilty knowledge'.

In the present case, the bench observed that the High Court overlooked the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, the weapon of offfence used for the commission and also the genesis of the occurrence. Accordingly, it issued notice to the State of Chhattisgarh and called for an explanation from the High Court as to why its judgment shouldn't be set aside.

"Let notice be issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause as to why the order of the High Court should not be set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court holding him guilty of the offence of murder should not be restored. This part we shall consider having regard to the overall merits of the case."

The matter will now be heard on November 18.

Appearances: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Arjun Garg- 1807, AOR Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Arushi Kulshrestha, Adv. Ms. Muskan Bensla,