Hansaram's Conviction Modified: Supreme Court Reduces Murder Charge to Culpable Homicide

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Hansaram vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, modified a conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 (Part II) IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). This change reduced the appellant’s punishment from life imprisonment to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The judgment highlights the importance of evaluating self-defense claims and differentiating between premeditated murder and acts committed in the heat of the moment.

This case originated from a dispute over an unpaid debt of Rs. 130, leading to a physical altercation that resulted in the death of one individual. The courts had to determine whether Hansaram acted with intent to kill or if the death was an unfortunate consequence of an unplanned altercation.

Background of the Case

The incident occurred on November 11, 2005, in Basantpur village, Chhattisgarh. The appellant, Hansaram, ran a kirana shop. On November 10, 2005, a dispute arose between him and Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW-3) over an unpaid sum of Rs. 130. Later that evening, Hansaram and his son, Virendra Sahu, allegedly assaulted Krishna Kumar Sahu.

The following morning, Dev Kumar Sahu (PW-6) and his brother, Ram Kumar Sahu (deceased), went to relieve themselves near a Nala (water stream). It was here that Hansaram allegedly struck Ram Kumar Sahu on the head with a tangi (a sharp-edged axe), leading to his eventual death.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at 8:10 a.m. the same day, initially registering the case under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). After Ram Kumar Sahu succumbed to his injuries, the case was converted to Section 302 IPC (murder).

Trial Court Verdict

The trial court found Hansaram guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000. The prosecution presented witness testimonies, including those of Dev Kumar Sahu (PW-6) and Preetam Lal Sahu (PW-8), to establish that Hansaram had intentionally killed Ram Kumar Sahu.

Defense Argument

Hansaram’s defense was based on the claim of self-defense. His version of the incident was as follows:

On November 11, 2005, at 6:30 a.m., he went to the Nala with a toothbrush and gudakhu (tobacco paste).
He saw Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW-3), Dev Kumar Sahu (PW-6), Shail Kumar (PW-9), and Ram Kumar Sahu (deceased) standing near the field, armed with a tangi and lathis (wooden sticks).
Fearing an attack, he pleaded with them not to hurt him, but they began assaulting him.
Krishna Kumar Sahu struck him with a tangi, injuring his hand and head.
In an attempt to save himself, he grabbed the tangi and swung it, inadvertently hitting Ram Kumar Sahu.
Hansaram then lost consciousness and was later taken to a hospital, where he remained for eight days.

Medical Evidence

The medical reports played a crucial role in assessing the events. The prosecution presented the post-mortem findings of Dr. Hulesh Mandley (PW-19), who stated:

The deceased suffered a 6.2 cm-long lacerated wound on the head.
The injury was caused by a sharp-edged weapon.

Hansaram was also medically examined by Dr. O.P. Shrivastava (PW-13), who found:

A 2-inch incised wound on Hansaram’s head.
Contusions on his left thumb, pelvic region, and knee.

The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries suffered by Hansaram, which lent credibility to his self-defense claim.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed the circumstances surrounding the case and made the following key observations:

The fight was not premeditated.
Hansaram suffered significant injuries.
The prosecution failed to justify why Hansaram was also injured.
There was no clear intent to kill.

The Supreme Court stated:

“There is no evidence to show that the murder of Ram Kumar Sahu was premeditated. We are convinced that the appellant did not have any intention to kill him.”

It ruled that Hansaram’s actions did not constitute murder under Section 302 IPC but rather culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (Part II) IPC.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court modified the conviction and sentence:

Hansaram’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside.
He was convicted under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and sentenced to seven years imprisonment.
If he had already served seven years, he was to be released immediately.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to various legal precedents on self-defense, intention, and culpable homicide, reinforcing its decision. It reiterated that courts must assess whether an accused acted out of self-preservation or if there was criminal intent.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of evaluating all aspects of an altercation before concluding a murder conviction. By reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide, the Supreme Court acknowledged that Hansaram did not act with premeditated intent to kill but reacted in self-defense. The ruling serves as a significant precedent in cases where claims of self-defense are raised in homicide trials.

Petitioner Name: Hansaram.
Respondent Name: The State of Chhattisgarh.
Judgment By: Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Place Of Incident: Basantpur, Chhattisgarh.
Judgment Date: 04-07-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Hansaram vs The State of Chhatti Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-07-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category