Vijaynagar, P.S. Ramanujganj Distrct Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Choki Vijaynagar, P.S. Ramanuj
Case Details
1 CRA No.213/2022 2025:CGHC:42655-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 213 of 2022 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.26 10:47:04 +0530 1 - Thakurdas Yadav S/o Devan Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Mahavir Nagar, Chowki Vijaynagar, P.S. Ramanujganj Distrct Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 2 - Balgovind Yadav S/o Thakurdas Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Mahavir Nagar, Chowki Vijaynagar, P.S. Ramanujganj Distrct Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Choki Vijaynagar, P.S. Ramanujganj, District, Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 22/08/2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 07/01/2022, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Ramanujganj, District: Balrampur-Ramanujganj, C.G. in 2 CRA No.213/2022 Sessions Case No.R-72/2017, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as Under:- Appellant No.1 (A-1) : Thakurdas Yadav Conviction Sentence U/s 302 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, imprisonment for 30 days U/s 307/34 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, imprisonment for 30 days Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently Appellant No.2 (A-2) : Balgovind Yadav Conviction Sentence U/s 302 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, imprisonment for 30 days U/s 307/34 of IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, imprisonment for 30 days Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, is that on 31/07/2017, at around 7:00 pm, the bull of accused Thakurdas had strayed into the maize field of the Lautan Das (since deceased). When Lautan Das went to the house of appellants to complain about it, A-1, armed with a stick, along with A-2, who is the son of A-1, started assaulting Lautan Das. When both the brothers of deceased namely; Lallu Yadav (PW-2) and Lalchand Yadav (PW-3) intervened to rescue, the accused persons also assaulted them. In the said assault, the deceased sustained injuries on his head, Lallu Yadav sustained 3 CRA No.213/2022 injuries on his head and hand, and Lalchand received injuries on his head and back portion of his body. While being taken to the hospital for treatment, Lautan Yadav succumbed to his injuries and died. During investigation, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1 and crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-3.
Legal Reasoning
Thereafter, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2. The appellants were arrested vide Ex.P-10 and P-11 and their memorandum statements were recorded vide Ex.P-5 and P-6. On the basis of memorandum, sticks and axe were recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P-7 to P-9. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P-17), Dr. Sharad Kumar Gupta (PW-9) opined that the cause of death was hypovolemic shock and Neurogenic shock and nature of death was homicidal. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellants herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused herein 4 CRA No.213/2022 questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. The entire case of prosecution is based upon the statement of the interested witnesses, who are family members of deceased and the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellants beyond all the reasonable doubts. As per the statement of the witnesses, the case of the prosecution comes under the purview of section 304 of IPC because assault was made either of the appellants and not with intention to cause death as the act done by them was on account of sudden and provocation, even though PW-9 Dr. Sharad Kumar Gupta examined by the prosecution found single injury on the head of the deceased which was inside wound near below the ear, apart from that, no other injury was found on the body of deceased, hence its crystal clear that, intention to cause death was not there, hence learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 6. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court 5 CRA No.213/2022 has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/17) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Sharad Kumar Gupta (PW-9). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/17) and the statement of Dr. Sharad Kumar Gupta (PW-9) that the nature of death of deceased was homicidal in nature, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 9. In the postmortem report of deceased, Doctor PW-9 has found the following injuries and given opinion: “The body was slightly warm; rigor mortis was absent, and no decomposition was present. On the left temple of the head, there was an incised/deep wound caused by a 6 CRA No.213/2022 sharp-edged weapon, measuring 2.5 inches × 1 inch. Muscular tissue was protruding from the site, and the temporal bone was fractured. Opinion regarding cause and nature of death: The cause of death was excessive hemorrhage and neurogenic shock due to head injury and intracranial bleeding. The death was homicidal in nature, and it had occurred approximately 3 to 3.5 hours prior to the post- mortem examination.” 10.Doctor PW-9, who conducted the medical examination of injured PW-2, Lallu Yadav and PW-3 Lalchand and found following injuries: Injuries sustained by PW-2, Lallu Yadav : On the right and left side of the head, there were contused lacerated wounds measuring 1.5 inch × ½ inch, ½ inch × ½ inch, and 2.5 inch × ¼ inch, from which bleeding was present. On the left wrist, there was a contused swelling measuring ½ inch × ¼ inch, with pain and swelling noted at the site. On the right thumb, there was complaint of pain and blackish discoloration. Injuries sustained by : PW-3, Lalchand On the frontal region of the head, there were two contused lacerated wounds, each measuring 2.5 inch × ¼ inch, with bleeding present. 7 CRA No.213/2022 On the lower part of the left eye, there was pain, swelling, and blackish discoloration (ecchymosis/bruise). Injuries suffered by the Lalchand was grievous in nature 11.Now the question would be whether the appellants herein are the author of the crime in question ? 12.PW-2 Lallu Yadav (injured), who is elder brother of deceased, stated in his evidence that near the house of A-1, field of deceased was there on which a maize crop was cultivated. The said crop was grazed by the bull of A-1. When his brother/deceased objected to the grazing of the crop, A-2 started assaulting with a stick and A-1 assaulted with an axe. Due to the axe blow on the head of deceased, he sustained severe injuries and was bleeding was oozing out. When he intervened the matter, the appellants also assaulted him with sticks on his head and he became unconscious. Thereafter, he was treated in the District Hospital, Ambikapur, and later he came to know that his younger brother/deceased had died. However, in cross- examination of para 9, he categorically stated that he had not seen the appellants to assaulted the deceased. 13. PW-3, Lalchand (injured), another brother of deceased, stated in his evidence that Deceased had planted maize in his field, which the accused grazed with their cattle, and a quarrel took place between them, due to which, appellants killed deceased. At the time of incident, he was at home with his brother Lallu Yadav. 8 CRA No.213/2022 When the appellants assaulted the deceased, aunt of A-2 started crying. On hearing her sound, he along with his brother Lallu Yadav reached the spot, they saw that the deceased was lying on the ground and blood was oozing out. When both of them tried to take the deceased from the spot, the appellants also assaulted them too, due to which, he sustained a head injury and Lallu had an injury on his thumb and head. Thereafter, they were taken to hospital. 14.PW-1 Rammandip Yadav, son of deceased stated in his evidence that on the date of incident i.e. 31.07.2017 at around 7:00 am, the bull of A-1 entered the maize field and was eating the maize. The said maize field was near the house of A-1. At that time, his father went to the house of the appellants to complain, to which, the appellants abused in filthy language to his father and A-2 assaulted him on the back of the head with an axe and A-1 assaulted him with a stick. On hearing the noise, he went to the spot and saw that his father was lying unconscious at the spot due to injuries and the appellants had gone inside their house. Lalita Yadav and Anita Yadav, who were cleaning utensils in their house at the time of the assault, saw the incident and told him about it. 15.PW-4, Lalita Yadav and PW-5, Anita, stated in their evidence that on the date of incident, the cattle of the appellants grazed the field of the deceased, to which, the deceased came to the house 9 CRA No.213/2022 of the appellants to object the same and at that time, A-1 assaulted the deceased with sticks and A-2 assaulted the deceased by means of axe. The appellant also assaulted the Lallu and Lalchand, who sustained injuries. 16.In view of the aforesaid evidence adduced by the prosecution and also considering the material available on record, it is quite vivid that both the appellants have caused severe injuries to PW-2 Lallu Yadav and PW-3, Lalchand which is reflected from the evidence of PW-4, Lalita and PW-5 Anita as also from the medical evidence, Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed upon both the appellants under Section 307/34 of the IPC is just and proper and accordingly the same is maintained. 17.As far as conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants for commission of murder of the deceased is concerned; from the evidence of the PW-4 Lalita Yadav and PW-5 Anita, they have seen that the A-1 has assaulted the deceased by means of stick, hence, it is manifest that the A-1 has assaulted the deceased with stick and not from the axe. Thus, no case is made out under Section 302 of the IPC against the A-1. 18.In view of above, conviction and sentence imposed upon the A-1- Thakurdas Yadav under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. 19.As far as the conviction and sentence of the A-2 -Balgovind Yadav is concerned, from the evidence of the PW-4 Lalita Yadav 10 CRA No.213/2022 and PW-5 Anita, they have seen that the A-2 has assaulted the deceased by means of axe, due to which, the deceased suffered injuries and died, hence, it is manifest that the A-2 has assaulted the deceased with an axe and in the FSL report, blood was found in the weapon used in the crime i.e. axe. 20.It is a trite law that “culpable homicide” is a genus and “murder” is its species and all “murders” are “culpable homicides, but all “culpable homicides are not “murders” as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rampal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1. The intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of actual circumstances, but in the light of what is supposed to be the circumstances. 21.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basdev v. State of Pepsu2 has made the following observations : “Of course, we have to distinguish between motive, intention and knowledge. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difÏcult to perceive that they connote different things. Even in some English decisions, the three ideas are used interchangeably and this has led to a certain amount of confusion.”