Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisarh, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31506-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 439 of 2018 1 - Raghunandan @ Choti Tarak S/o Budharuram Tarak Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Koma, P. S. Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Rajim, District Gariyaband Chhattisarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Suresh Tandon, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ Judgment on Board (09/07/2025) Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J 1. This Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.12.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, District Gariyaband in ST KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.07.10 17:20:56 +0530 2 No.37/2016 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Under Section 201 of the IPC RI for life with a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 2 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 22nd/23rd April 2016, at about 11.30 pm, in the house of complainant Kishore Tarak, the appellant had thrown the deceased namely, Kachra Bai upside down from the roof top and thereafter in order to screen himself from the offence, the appellant has lodged a false report. Merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) was lodged by Kishore Tarak (PW-1), son of the deceased. Thereafter
Facts
FIR was lodged vide Ex.-P/22. 3. Inquest was conducted after giving intimation to the witnesses vide Ex.-P/3. Nazri Naksha was prepared vide Ex.-P/5. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.-P/24. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.-P/16 pursuant to which one golden locket and broken bangles of the deceased were seized vide Ex.-P/17. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by (PW- 6) Dr. Virendra Hiroundiya, who gave his report (Ex.-P/10) and opined that cause of death was severe head injury as also the 3 injuries to vital organ of the body i.e. brain and the nature of death is accidental correlating with circumstantial evidence. 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The accused/ appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC has stated that he has been falsely implicated. However, he has not adduced any defence witness. 6. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment, against which this Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
10. It is well settled law that in order to convict the accused under Section 302 of the IPC, death must be homicidal in nature and the onus to prove the same in criminal trial is upon the prosecution. Further, the accused will come under the mischief of this section only when the act done by him has caused death. 11. In the matter of Madho Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan1, it was observed that if the evidence on record produced by the prosecution falls short of the proof of homicidal death, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. 12. Similarly, the Supreme Court, in the matter of Rupinder Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab and others2, has held that to find a man guilty of culpable homicide, the basic fact required to be established is that the accused caused the death. In the matter of M.B. Suresh v. State of Karnataka3, it has been held that for holding an accused guilty of murder, the prosecution has first to prove that it is a culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is defined under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code and an accused will
Arguments
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 & 201 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The incriminating circumstances relied upon by the trial Court are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment of conviction and submit that the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 4 & 201 of the IPC. The appellant is not entitled for acquittal and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and have gone through the records with utmost circumspection. Homicidal death