1 - Shanichar Ram, S/o Rathu Ram Dom, Aged about 36 years, Occupation- Agriculture v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Duldula, District- Jashpur
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15765 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 238 of 2006 1 - Shanichar Ram, S/o Rathu Ram Dom, Aged about 36 years, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Kerbeda, Thana & District- Simdega (Jharkhand) P.O. Chatakpur, Thana- Duldula, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Duldula, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 03.04.2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 31.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District- Jaspur in Sessions Trial No. 114/2005, whereby learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty 2 of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case, are that on 25/09/2005 at about 7:00 p.m., deceased Bihari Ram who is “Bhagna” of complainant came to the village of complainant and on account of festival Jyutiya, he enjoyed dancing and singing in the night. Thereafter, on 26.09.2005, at about 8:00- 9:00 a.m., he reached to the house of the complainant and after gathering her well being sat in the house of the complainant. At about 4:00 p.m., he went out from the house to answer nature’s call and all of a sudden, he shouted. After hearing his voice, the complainant- Dhanmait Bai and one Kalawati Bai came out running and saw that the accused – Sanichar Ram was beating the deceased by way of bicycle chain. When complainant and Kalawati intervened, thereafter, the appellant fled away from there. Complainant- Dhanmait Bai and Kalawati Bai took the deceased- Bihari Ram to the house and he was in the house throughout the night. On the next day i.e. on 27.09.2005, the deceased was not in a position to speak anything. Thereafter, the complainant sent her grandson at Patra Toli in the house of Bihari Ram wherefrom his son, wife and father came to the house of complainant, to whom the complainant narrated the incident. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to his house at Patra Toli and as they were managing a vehicle to shift Bihari Ram from Patratoli to Duldula, at about 5.30 p.m. Bihari Ram died. Thereafter, the matter was reported to police station and FIR was lodged against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3 302 of IPC. After completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur. From there, the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter the matter was transferred to the learned trial Court for trial and adjudication. The learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant, to which the appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him & pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, no evidence was adduced by the appellant in his defence. 4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and conviction of sentence is invalid, improper, irrational, contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant has falsely been involved with the alleged offence; by prosecution with the collusion of Dhanmait Bai (P.W.-3) and Kalawati Bai ( P.W.-4) who are obviously interested witnesses. The learned trial Court grossly erred to rely upon the contradictory and untrustworthy evidence of Dhanmait Bai (P.W.-3) and Kalawati Bai ( P.W.-4). The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence 4 properly. The prosecution story is also not reliable as the evidence of Dhanmait Bai (P.W.-3) pertaining to time of death of the deceased on the same evening of occurrence at about 6 p.m. and looking to the dead body found in the house of Bhulak with disclosure of time of death to be at about 5.30 p.m., the next day of occurrence; therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have discarded the whole prosecution
Decision
story. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted the appellant accordingly. Therefore, the contention made by the counsel for the appellant is not acceptable, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 8. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced him as prescribed para 1 of this judgment. 9. Dhanmait Bai (P.W.-3) stated that on the date of the incident, she saw the appellant assaulting the deceased by strangulating him with a bicycle chain. 10. Kalawati Bai (P.W.-4) also supported the prosecution story and stated that the deceased was her maternal uncle. On the date of the incident, the deceased went to answer the nature’s call. Near the tree, the accused/appellant assaulted the deceased with bicycle chain. When 5 the accused was assaulting the deceased, the accused was shouting, and upon hearing his voice, she along with her grandmother went out and saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with a bicycle chain. 11.Dr. Vipin Kumar Indanvar (P.W.-1) conducted the post mortem of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation and death is homicidal in nature. 12. Learned trial Court found that the prosecution did not prove the fact that the accused/appellant had any intention to cause the death of the deceased as Dhanmait Bai (P.W.-3) admitted that the deceased had no old enmity with the appellant and even on the festival, the deceased had no quarrel with the appellant. Therefore, no intention of the accused/appellant to commit the murder of the deceased is found to be proved and as such, the offence under Section 302 of IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. However, both the prosecution witnesses i.e Dhanmait Bai (P.W.-3) and Kalawati Bai (P.W.-4) clearly stated that they saw the accused/appellant assaulting the deceased with a bicycle chain and they remain affirmed during their cross-examination. As per post mortem report (Ex.P/1) of the deceased, chain marks were clearly found on the body of the deceased. Thus, it is found to be proved that the appellant voluntarily assaulted the deceased with a bicycle chain and caused injuries to him. Learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are well merited and based upon proper appreciation of oral and 6 documentary evidence. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 13.In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. As the accused/appellant is reported to have been released from jail after completion of the entire sentence, there is no need to pass any order regarding his arrest, surrender etc. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV