Raigarh (C.G.) vs State of Chhattisgarh,

mfirmity m fhe jzidgment of accnsed was aufhor of fhe crijaie in question. the trial Court to the extent fhat the As far as arguinent a< vaaced by learaed counsel for fhe appeUaat is concemed, ar^uraent of leamed counsel appellaat has force for the r^ason that case of fhe prosecution is fhat fhe deceased was ia fhe [habit of consuming Uqiior, thereafter accused. On the fateful day, fhe used to abuse aiid beat thd deceased caine ia a dniny m coudition, nished towards the accused to beat hiai, theref<t >re, the acczised attacked hun with crowbar. PW-6 Dr, Ashol Kuniar Jam, who conducted postaiortem, has noticed follo^ pyuig uyunes:- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Contusion over rig4t cheek near eye above fhe level of zygoraatic arch ia f4e size of2 CDI x 1 cni, Bluish discolouratio^i of right upper eyeUd, Conttision on left sifte of ueck ia the size of 7 cin x 3 cni aad 1 cia in widtht, Lobule ofleft earwa^ tom, Contusion on left si( arch ia fhe size of 1. le of face above the level of zygoniatic ^ cni x 1 cni. On openiag skuU there t¥as clotted blood. Clotted blood was present in the braiii. He ha^ canse of deafti was shock on| further stated that iti his opiaion accoiint of sudden attack m.ade on his head and also on accounl of heart failzire. The doctor has not stated that injtiry was sufficie^ ^it iii fhe ordiaaiy course of nature to P.T.O. XI-HC-78 ^^^TRT^T, ^Tn^ll(o, fa<rll<rl^< ^") +11*1011 ?b+1ich ^ 200 3ll^l ^flch (*ic<^st^;T) ^TT^T^r^Jcb cTSTT<3Ti^T5h^i<=b ^RTT^FC^feT^n^T chi^f^i<41vi ^i^^T^fte^^^K ^•3:rf^T3n^T cazise death. Therewasno fi^icture or damage to fhe vital orgaii of neck or head. The background ia whjich niakes it clear fhat fhe acciis^d his father. However, froin f attacked his father with. crowt the accused attacked his fafher kd had no mtention to cause deafh of lie inaaner ia which fhe accused bar ftiat too on neck an.d face, it can safely be iaferred that fhe) accused had knowledge that by attackiag wifh. crowbar he in^ ly Ukely to caiise deafh ofhis father. Therefore, knowledge caa be ittributed to the accused. In view of th-e above facts, ofFence agaijn.st the accused is niade oiit iinder Sectiou 304 Part-II of fhe I.Pj C., Hence conviction of fhe accused under Section 302 of the I.H ,C. and sentence miposed upon him under fhaf sectlon cannot be sustaiaed. In fhe result, fhe app^ sentence ioiposed upon fhe 4 ofthe I.P..G. are set aside. al partly siicceeds. Conviction and .ccused/appeUaat iinder Section 302 Iijistead fhercof, he is convicted under t;'^. Section 304 Part-II ofthe I.P.^ ^. and sentenced to zuidergo R.I. for 8 years. The acciised/appeUaj|it is stated to be iii detention siace 7-5-97 fhere.by he has cora^leted inore fhan. 9 years sentence, It is, therefore, he has already serv^d sentence iiaposed zipon hiai. therefore, du'ected fhat fhe accused/appeUaiit be set at Uberty forthwith, ifnot reqziired in. aijiy other case. Conseqiiently, M.(Cr.)P. No.312/2007 staads disposed of. Barve Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.