Ramkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the appellant in Cr.A. No.521/04. Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, counsel for the appellant in Cr.A.No.542/04. Shri Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State in both the appeals. ORAL IUDGMENT (Passed on 30th July, 2013) These appeals are directed against judgment dated

08.6.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellants Vinod Kumar and Ramkumar have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. Name ofthe appellant Offence Under Section Jail sentence Payment offine Default of payment of fine Vinod Kumar Section 323/34 IPC Section 325/34 IPC Section 367/34 IPC Section 323/34 IPC Section 325/34 IPC Ram Kumar Sahu Rl forthree months Rl forthree Rl forfour Rl for three months Rl forthree Rs.1500/- Rlfor months Rs.500/- Rl for one Rs.1500/- Rlfor months Section 367/34 IPC Rl forfour Rs.500/- Rl for one

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: Deceased Sunderlal was father of appellant Ramkumar and complainant Labua Ram (PW-1) was his uncle. On 30.11.2003 at about 7.00 pm, deceased Sunderlal was sitting along with his cousin Labua Ram (PW-1) in front of the fire for warming. At that time, appellants came there and forcibly took Sunderlal and Labua Ram (PW-1) in a yellow car. The appellants assaulted Sunderlal and Labua Ram (PW-1) and Sunderlal sustained injuries on his head and leg and Labua Ram also sustained injuries. The appellants took Sunderlal and Labua Ram (PW-1) in a vehicle bearing registration No.CG 12 ZJ 0141. Champa Police received information through wireless that persons were kidnapped and taken away in a car. The police made nakabandhi and stopped the vehicle bearing registration No. CG 12 ZJ 0141. Sunderlal lodged First Information Report (Ex-P/17) in Police Station, Jaijaipur. Sunderlal was sent to BDM Government Hospital, Champa vide Exd-P/18 for medical examination. Dr. VKAgrawal (PW- 9) examined Sunderlal and gave his report (Ex-P/9) in which he found (i) lacerated wound of4cmx 1 cm x skin deep on the Jeft side of the head (ii) lacerated wound of4cm x 1 cm x skin deep on the left leg anterior over the middle of the leg. He opined that the injuries sustained by Sunderlal simple in nature. Labua Ram (PW-1) was also sent to BDM Government Hospital, Champa for medial examination. Dr. Hari Chandel (PW-15) examined him and gave his report (Ex-P/23), in which he found (i) punctured wound over upper l/3rd on left leg swelling tendemess bony crepts over l/3rd on the left leg present (ii) swelling tenderness deformity over l/3rd of right leg bone crepts present (iii) swetling tenderness deformity bone crepts over l/3rd on left forearm, r "•^ '••^ '^ .^t^s^ '%. ^l"^^ ^^!^-' movement painful and restricted (iv) tenderness over left side of the chest and left hip. He advised for X-ray of leg, ankle and left hip. After examination on X-ray, he found fracture on tibia fibula bone. Sunderlal died on 14.12.2003. The matter was reported in Police Station Jaijaipur. Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence and gave notice to the panchas and prepared inquest on the dead body of the deceased vide Ex-P/3. Dead body of the deceased was sent to Community Health Centre, Jaijaipur for postmortem examination vide Ex-P/11. Dr. KL Uraon (PW- 11) conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and gave his report (Ex-P/12), in.which he found (i) one newly healed wound (within tendays) seen on the left parietal region of scalp (ii) lacerated wound (on healing stage) age of the wound may be 7-10 days seen on the left leg (on the shin bone area of the leg). He opined that cause of death was metabolic shock due to intoxication caused by intra-abdominal injury, (small rupture seen in III part of duodenum) resultant massive accumulation of visceral fluid in abdominal cavity. In further investigation, spot map (Ex-P/4) was prepared by Investigating Officer and another spot map (Ex- P/5) was prepared by Patwari Manhari Prasad Patel (PW-4). Ambassador car and its documents were seized from M. ^^^s^^ "<^\ ^^3a%. ' ^:: •^ K. ^-. : ti||l% ^ ^ s "'•^?y.;^^' .s appellant Vinod Kumar vide Ex-P/20. Appellants Ramkumar Sahu and Vinod Kumar were arrested vide Ex-P/37 and P/38. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sakti, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Session, Bilaspur, from where it was received on transfer by Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Bilaspur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that they are not pressing these appeals on merits and they would confine their argument only on the sentence part of the impugned judgment. They further submit appellant Ramkumar was in jail from 02.12.2003

12.7.2004 and appellant Vinod Kumar was in jail

02.12.2003 to 08.6.2004. Appellant Ramkumar remained in for about 7 months and 10 days and appellant Vinod Kumar remained in jail for about 6 months and 20 days. They further argued that the incident took place in the year 2003 and the case is pending for about 10 years. The ends of justice would be met if, the jail sentence awarded to the appellants are restricted to the period already undergone by them. ^''"'..^ "^^ ,,^^^ '^:^^..^; ^^L^': "^,::&^-^ ^ y.y k ®

4. Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the above argument and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Sessions Trial No.100/2004.

6. Looking to the evidence of Labua Ram (PW-1), Dev Kumari (PW-2), Sohadra Sahu (PW-3) and Leelaram Sahu (PW-6), it appears that the appellants came with a car and they forcibly took deceased Sunderlal and Labua Ram (PW- 1) and assaulted them. Looking to the evidence of above witnesses, it appears the appellants kidnapped deceased Sunderlal and Labua Ram (PW-1) and assaulted the deceased and Labua Ram (PW-1). The evidence of the prosecution witnesses Labua Ram (PW-1), Dev Kumari (PW- 2), Sohadra Sahu (PW-3) and Leelaram Sahu (PW-6) are reliable, clinching and trustworthy. Their evidence are corroborated by medical evidence and FIR. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court the appellants are liable for punishment under Section 323/34, 325/34 and 367/34 IPC.

7. So far as the sentence is concerned, the incident took place in the year 2003 and the case is pending for about ten years and appellant Ramkumar was the son of deceased .^^^^ ^ •/^-y^. ~~:: •^/"":^ •^:^^, ..yy Sunderlal and nephew of complainant Labua Ram (PW-1) and in the instant case, appellant Ramkumar remained in for about 7 months and 10 days and appellant Vinod Kumar remained in jail for about 6 months and 20 days. In Manjappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 6 SCC 231, the appetlant was convicted under Section 323 and 325 IPC and he remained 1 custody for about 15 days. The Hon'bte Supreme Court reduced the substantive sentence to the period already undergone by him and directed to pay additional amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

8. In Naib Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 2192, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: "Conviction of accused fracture of skull Sentence Accused teacher causing of in Govt. School injury caused in heat or moment incident taking place 13 years back sending accused to jail would not be proper sentence of year's R.l. Reduced 1 imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.5000/- imposed."

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of instance case and in the light of the above judgments, 1 do not feel it appropriate to send the appellants back to jail. 1 am of the view that ends of justice would be met if, while upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections .^^%- ^y'^ v. •^r'" ,~"^r •-• ••^l^^^'- ^s -^- 8 323/34, 325/34 and 367/34 IPC, the jail sentence awarded to them is restricted to the period already undergone by them.

10. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 367/34 IPC is upheld. However, the jail sentence awarded to them is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court is upheld. ^ Bini Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge