Magistrate Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh v. Lasan
Case Details
1 PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.09 16:22:52 +0530 2025:CGHC:16407-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 73 of 2016 State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Lasan @ Lahsan Uraon, S/o Tanis Uraon, Aged About 36 Years, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Sukhri, P.S. Chando, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent
Legal Reasoning
For State/Appellant : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L. For Respondent : None, though served. D.B:-Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board Per: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 08/04/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State/appellant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 07/11/2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj in Sessions Trial No.323/2011, whereby, the respondent- Lasan @ Lahsan Uraon has been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, a merg intimation (Ex.P/1) was lodged by father of the deceased, namely, Tetara Ram on 22/04/2011 before the Police Station- Chando, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), stating therein that his son, namely, Laxman was assaulted by the respondent with the aid of stick (Danda) on the fateful day, i.e. 17/04/2011, when he intervened the quarrel, which had taken place between him and his wife. On account of the injuries sustained, he was admitted into the Holy Cross Hospital at Ambikapur, but he died during the course of his treatment on 21/04/2011 and, based upon the said information, an FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the respondent in connection with Crime No.17/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Inquest of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P/4 and autopsy of the dead body was conducted by Dr. R.S. Markam (PW- 13), who opined vide his report (Ex.P/16) that, the cause of death was head injury and intracranial hemorrhage and, accordingly, opined to be homicidal in nature. During investigation, a stick (Danda) was recovered from the respondent vide seizure memo (Ex.P/7) based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P/6) and, after completing the usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj against the respondent with regard to the alleged offence mentioned herein- above and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where the charge has been framed against the respondent under Section 302 of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3 3. In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents, while none was examined by him in his defence. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution held that since there are material discrepancies in the statement of eye witnesses, namely, Tetara (PW-2), Rajmaniya (PW- 3) and Shahibin (PW-5), therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent was involved in connection with the alleged crime and, accordingly, he has been acquitted from the commission of the alleged offence and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the finding of the trial Court holding that the respondent is not involved in connection with the alleged crime is, apparently, contrary to the materials available on record, in-as-much as, the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby, erred in acquitting him as such from the commission of the alleged crime. 6. Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the respondent. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the State/appellant and perused the entire record carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent has been charge-sheeted with regard to the offence punishable under 4 Section 302 of IPC for the commission of murder of one Laxman, when he intervened the dispute occurred between him (respondent) and, his wife on 17/04/2011, owing to which, the respondent got annoyed and assaulted him with the aid of stick. According to the prosecution, the alleged incident was witnessed by the father of deceased, namely, Tetara Ram (PW-2), his wife Shahibin (PW-5), Rajmaniya Uraon (PW-3) and one Ganga Uraon. 9. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the father of the deceased-Tetara Ram was examined as PW-2. Although, it was stated by him that he has seen the alleged incident along with them, i.e., his wife (PW-5), Rajmaniya (PW-3) and one Ganga Uraon, but they have not supported his testimony, as Rajmaniya (PW-3) was at home and came out after hearing the noise and, it was deposed specifically at para-2 in her cross-examination, that she has not seen the alleged incident and similar is the statement of deceased’s mother, namely, Shahibin (PW-5). Insofar as Ganga Uraon is concerned, the same is, however, not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. They were, thus, not the eye- witnesses as alleged by him (Tetara Ram) at the time of lodging the FIR (Ex.P/2). That apart, the father (PW-2) of the deceased, though stated that at the time of the incident, his son was assaulted by the respondent with the aid of stick (Danda), but no report with regard to the alleged incident, occurred on 17/04/2011, was, however, lodged by him and it appears further from his statement, particularly paragraph 5, that after the occurrence of the alleged incident, his said son was at home for the period of 03 days and stated further 5 that if alleged assault would have taken place, he would have certainly lodged the report. Therefore, no reliance could be placed upon his testimony. Ahibaran (PW-4), who is son of the deceased- Laxman, was not stated to be the eye witness according to said Tetara Ram, as evident from FIR (Ex.P/2), yet, it was stated by him that he has also seen the alleged incident and, it appears further from his testimony that after the occurrence of the alleged incident, his father, the deceased, was taken to home, where he stayed for 15 days. His statement, therefore, appears to be wholly unreliable as the deceased has died on 21/04/2011, i.e. after 5 days of the occurrence of the alleged incident. There is, thus, gross disparity in the statement of Tetara Ram (PW-2), Rajmaniya (PW-3) and Ahibaran (PW-4) and, therefore, it would not be safe to place upon their testimonies in order to hold that the respondent was involved in connection with the alleged crime. Besides, no any plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why, the report was lodged only on 22/04/2011 with regard to the alleged incident, which was taken place 4 to 5 days prior to that, i.e. 17/04/2011. The trial Court, after taking note of these material facts has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondent from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 10. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Prashant