Afr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by R NIRALA 1 2025:CGHC:45601 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.70 of 2007 1 - Jagat Ram Nageshiya S/o Barai Ram, aged about 22 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Mahadeo, Jobla, PS Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) versus Appellant (s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Bagicha, District Jashpur (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. AG Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey 08/09/2025 Judgment on Board 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2006 passed by the learned Session Judge, Jashpur (C.G.) in Session Trial No.124/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.04.2005 at about 2 5.45 pm PW-1 Raj Kumar lodged the report before police station Bagicha that on the same day PW-1 along with other labourer had gone to village Rokdapat to take grain at that time the Sajan Munshi and other two persons along with present appellant Nagashiya who were signing on master roll coupon in school then he deceased said to the appellant that Jagat Ram is the brother of the Secretary and if they would have brought the key then the rice would have been provided to all persons. Due to this the appellant pressed the neck of the deceased and the deceased died thereafter the police had received the information and lodged the F.I.R. and after the investigation challan has been filed against the accused appellant U/S 302 of I.P.C and the learned Session Judge after recording the prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The learned Trial Court ought to have considered that no ingredients of Section 304-II of IPC is attracted in this case. PW09 Dr. T. K. sahu opined that definite opinion cannot be given regarding the nature of death and it is a matter of investigation by the Police on the basis of the evidence present and the doctor also opined in query report that the death was not due to strangulation and also death was not due to 3 pressure on neck by stole. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the entire evidence is taken on its face value, offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is not made out against the accused/appellant and at best the act of the accused/appellant falls within the ambit of Section 325 of IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the deceased, but the learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 304- Part II of IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the incident took place in the year 2005 and thereby more than 20 years have rolled by since then. The accused/appellant has remained in jail for more than 01 year and 6 months and no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail, however he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the sentence imposed upon him may be reduced to the period already undergone by him after altering the conviction of the appellant under Section 325 of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 4. Ex adverso, learned State counsel, supporting the impugned judgment submits that prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and looking to the statement of the doctor, has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and it is not the case of alteration of offence from under Section 304-II of IPC to Section 325 of the IPC where the conviction of the appellant can be 4 modified for lesser offence, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 6. PW-1 Rajkumar stated that on the date of incident, the accused snatched the stole from the deceased upon which he fell down and died, then he lodged FIR (Ex-P/1) and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. He remained firm in his cross-examination. 7. PW-2 Deo Sai also supported the statement of the complainant and stated that the deceased Chotto was wearing one stole on his neck and accused snatched the same, upon which he fell down and thereafter died. 8. Dr. T. K. Sahu (PW-9) conducted postmortem of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is vasovagal syncope and no definite opinion can be given regarding the death and it is a matter of investigation by the police on the basis of evidence. When it was asked by the police prosecution on query report, then he answered as under:- “1- D;k e`rd dh e`R;q mlds xys esa yisVk gqvk xeNs ds dlus ls gks ldrh gS \ m0 ijh{k.k ds nkSjku ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugh feyk ftlls ;g dgk tk lds fd e`rd dh e`R;q xys esa yisVs gq, xeNs ds dkj.k gq;h Fkh 2- D;k e`rd dh e`R;q xys es xeNk ds dlko ls ne ?kqVus ls gqvk gS 5 \ m0 ughA 3- d;k e`rd dh e`R;q mlds xys esa iM+s xeNk ds vpkud dlko ls tehu ij fxjus ls gqvk gS \ m0 gka ,slk gks ldrk gSA” He gave his report vide Ex-P/8. In the cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion of the defence that he did not find any external injuries on the body of the deceased and he also did not find any marks of stole on his neck and he admitted this suggestion that he found fatty liver in internal examination of the deceased and he also found symptoms of old disease and he also admitted that death can be possible due to fatty liver. 9. It is clear from the statement of eye witness that the accused only snatched the stole of the deceased due to which he fell down on the floor and due to his internal previous disease he died. The doctor PW-9 has also not opined homicidal death but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC 10. This Court in the matter of Smt. Mangrita Minz vs State of Chhattisgarh, passed in CRA No.527/2008, decided on 03.09.2025, held in paras 15, 16 & 17 as under:- It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in “15. the matter of Lal Mandi vs. State of W.B.1 in para 8, which read as under:- 8. The only consistent evidence that emerges from the testimony of PW 2, PW 5 and PW 8 is that the appellant gave a kick to the deceased at the house of Man Singh. According to the post- mortem report, the deceased had four incised wounds besides a lacerated wound and fracture 1 (1995) 3 SCC 603 6 of ribs. The fracture of ribs of the deceased is attributed to the appellant and his co-accused . The appellant can, thus, be fastened with the liability of an offence under Sections 325/34 of IPC only. The evidence on the record does not justify the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 201 IPC.” 16. The In the case in hand, as per prosecution story itself, the appellant assaulted the deceased Shilbani by legs and doctor has only found one injury on the body of the deceased and cause of death was uncertain. Thus, looking to the statement of eye-witness (PW-6) and postmortem report (Ex.P/1) given by Dr. Sangeeta Tirki (PW-1) and query report (Ex. P/2), it is quite evident that the deceased died due to rupture of her enlarged spleen and it was not proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt regarding the death of the deceased as to whether her spleen got ruptured due to the assaults of appellant or it caused due to fall on a hard and blunt surface or object. 17 Therefore, neither intention nor knowledge can be attributed to the accused for causing murder of culpable homicide not amounting to murder of deceased Shilbani. At the most, the offence under Section 325 of IPC is proved as the accused voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the deceased.” 11. In light of the above, in the present case also the accused only snatched the stole of deceased and as a result of which he fell down on the floor and due to fatty liver he may have died as opined by the doctor, as such neither intention nor knowledge can be attributed to the accused for causing murder or culpable homicidal not amounting to death of the deceased, thus at the most offence under Section 325 is proved as the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the deceased. Thus considering the nature and extent of injuries and the statement of 7 the prosecution witnesses as well as the doctor, the act of the accused does not fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II of IPC which makes him liable to be convicted under Section 325 of IPC. Thus, the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is altered to Section 325 of IPC. 12. As regards quantum of sentence, keeping in view the facts that the incident took place in the year 2005 and thereby more than 20 years have rolled by since then and this appeal is pending since 2007. The accused/appellant has remained in jail for more than 01 year and 6 months and he did not misuse the liberty while being on bail. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in again sending him to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him for offence under Section 325 of IPC. 13.
Decision
In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 304-II of IPC is hereby set aside and he is instead convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023 the appellant is also directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an 8 undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala