State of Chhattisgarh v. Ramsewak) by the
Case Details
Page No.1 of 7 IN CRA-985-2023 SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.04.17 16:58:57 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:17526 NAFR Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2023 [Arising out of judgment dated 31.03.2023, passed in Sessions Case No.26 of 2020 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Ramsewak) by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (CG)] Ramsewak Singh S/o Late Ahibaran Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o At Village Biharpur, P. S. Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Reserve Police Manendragarh, Police Station Manendragarh, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Respondent ... Petitioner (In Jail) [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant For Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal : Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer (Judgment on Board) 16 .04.202 5 (1) This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused herein under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2023, passed in Sessions Case No.26 of 2020 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Ramsewak) by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (CG), whereby he has been convicted for offence Page No.2 of 7 IN CRA-985-2023 under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. (2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that in the intervening night of 03/04-09.2020, between 10:00 PM to 8:45 AM, in the house of Sumitra, situated at Village Biharpur, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Mahendragrah, District Koriya (CG), the accused-appellant herein assaulted his wife- Sumitra (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) by means of solid wooden stick, due to which she suffered grievance injury and died and, thereby, said to have committed offence under Section 302 of IPC. (3) It is further case of the prosecution that when Neeraj Singh (PW-01) reported the matter to the police, dehati marg intimation (Ex.P/01) was registered and wheels of investigation started running, in which, nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/09. Summons under Section 175 of CrPC were issued vide Ex.P/02 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/03. The dead- body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem report (Ex.P/14), conducted by Dr. SN Gupta (PW-09), it was opined that the cause of death of deceased is shock due to internal hemorrhage from right lungs and nature of death is homicidal. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/18 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/05. Pursuant Page No.3 of 7 IN CRA-985-2023 to the memorandum statement of the appellant, one wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P/06. The said seized wooden stick was sent for query to an expert/doctor and, as per query report (Ex.P/15), Dr. SN Gupta (PW-09), has opined that the injuries found over the body of the deceased can be caused by said wooden stick. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. (4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents, whereas the appellant in support of his defence has neither examined witness nor exhibited any document. (5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant for offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Legal Reasoning
(6) Ms. Lata Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Page No.4 of 7 IN CRA-985-2023 submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. She submits that there is no evidence availble on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question. Therefore, he is entitled for acquittal. In alternative, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the appellant remained in jail for a period of 04 years and 07 months, he be sentenced to the period already undergone by him. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. (7) 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. In view of the statements of prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC. It is also submitted that it is not the case where the sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC requires to be altered/reduced. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. (8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Page No.5 of 7 IN CRA-985-2023 (9) 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 postmortem report (Ex.P/14), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of deceased is shock due to internal hemorrhage from right lungs and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. SN Gupta (PW-09). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) and the statement of Dr. SN Gupta (PW-09), who has conducted postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion 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. We hereby affirm the said finding. (10) Now, the next question would be whether the accused- appellant herein is the author of the crime, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the appellant and the deceased were the only inmates in the house, where they use to reside and the dead-body of the deceased was also found, on the date and time of the offence and the appellant failed to explain in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC that as to how and in what manner his wife (deceased) sustained injuries and died. Furthermore, Neeraj Singh (PW-01) has also stated before the Page No.6 of 7 IN CRA-985-2023 Court that before the incident he has seen the appellant and the deceasd quarreling and, after the incident, when he visited the house of the deceased, he saw the dead-body of the deceased lying and the appellant was absconded, which is relevant fact under Section 08 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, weapon of the offence i.e. wooden stick has been seized vide Ex.P/06 and, as per query report (Ex.P/15), Dr. SN Gupta (PW-09), has opined that the injuries found over the body of the deceased can be caused by said wooden stick. As such, on the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. (11) Now, the question is as to whether, the sentence of 07 years RI awarded to the appellant for the learned trial Court for committing offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC can be reduced, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ? (12) Considering the facts and circumstance of the present case, where it has been established that looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased, though the appellant had no intention, but he must have had knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him on the body of the deceased would likely to cause her death and there Page No.7 of 7 IN CRA-985-2023 was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and the injuries caused by him were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and also it is an evidence available on record that the appellant and the deceased both used to consume liquor and quarrel with each other, while affirming the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of 07 years’ RI to 05 years RI. However, the fine sentence and default stipulation imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. (13) Accordingly, with aforesaid modification, this criminal appeal
Decision
stands finally disposed of. (14) Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action, if any. s@if (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Sd/- Judge