Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:19618-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 638 of 2021 1 - Ravi Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Panchuram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Rampur Para, Kapan, Out Post - Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Panchuram Yadav S/o Late Maniram Yadav Aged About 50 Years R/o Rampur Para, Kapan, Out Post - Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bhagwat Yadav S/o Shri Panchuram Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Rampur Para, Kapan, Out Post - Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ...Appellants(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For appellants For Respondent/State : : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate. Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Judge Judgment on Board Per Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 30 .0 4 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellants. 2 Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Dy. G.A., appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Atrocities Act, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Session Trial No. 23/2019, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Section 302/34 of the Indian Sentence Rigorous imprisonment (for short, Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) ‘R.I.’) for life (for all the appellantss) and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month additional R.I. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Umrav Patle went to police outpost Naila and has made a oral complaint to the effect that on the date of incidence i.e. on 28.05.2019 around 09:00 with he and his brother namely Mithlesh sat in the house of deceased Shashikant at Village Saajapali. After a while Shashikant the deceased asked them to have a walkaround and all of three went together to village Rampurkapan where three persons were standing looking to which the deceased asked the Ravi (accused) why they are standing on which the accused started abusing the deceased and went inside and brought a Tangiya, the accused along with the other co-accused started assaulting 3 the deceased and looking to which the complainant and the other person who came with the deceased ran away from the spot. The accused persons threatened the complainant that they would kill them if the complainant discloses the incident to anyone. The deceased was taken to District Hospital Janjgir for treatment and from where he was referred to Higher institute for medical treatment and thereafter the deceased succumbed to death due to injury. After the said complaint was lodged,
Legal Reasoning
the police outpost Naila registered a unnumbered FIR against the accused persons. The case was registered at the City Kotwali Police Station in Janjgir Champa, and the body panchnama was prepared and an application for the postmortem examination was recorded vide Ex.P/27. 4. Based on this, since the incident occurred within the jurisdiction of the Janjgir Champa Police Station, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered vide Ex.P/15. A spot map (Ex.P/01) was prepared by the Patwari. The accused was taken into custody vide Ex.P/21 to 23, and tangiya was seized vide Ex.P/10. A crime details form was prepared by the Police vide Ex.P/7 & 07A. . The seized property was sent to the State Forensic Laboratory for examination and the report was received vide Ex.P/19. 5. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur (C.G.), where Dr. Shiv Narayana Gole (PW-16) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P/27 and found following injuries:- Injuries: 4 1. Stiches of caniotonmy were present on left frontoparietal temporal region of head, measuring 08 cms swollen with blood stain and irregular margins. 2. Five stitches were present on occipital scalp 3. There were four stitches in front of the left ear. 4. Green contusion measuring 14x 06 cm was present over the suprascapular region of the left region. 5. There was a contusion of 10x 8 cm on the outer part of the left hip All the above injuries were antemortem (before death). Dr. Shiv Narayana Gole (PW-16) opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to the impact of a blunt and hard object on the head, leading to cardiac and respiratory arrest. The death of the deceased occurred within 12-18 hours of the examination. 6. After due investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet against the appellants before the trial Court. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 294, 506(B), 302/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and proceeded on trial. The appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents. The appellants/accused examined none in his defence. 8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 05.04.2021, convicted the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the 5 IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that if the case of the prosecution is accepted on the face of it, then also the appellants is said to have caused injuries to deceased on the spur of the moment because the deceased himself came to the appellants and talked to them and thereafter altercation between them has been commenced. There was no motive or intention on the part of the appellants to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellants caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellants falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and the act of the appellants is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC. Further, the appellants No. 1 and 3 are in jail since 04.06.2019 and they have completed near about 05 years and 10 months, and the appellant No. 2 is in jail since 05.04.2021 and he has completed near about 04 years, therefore, considering the period he had already undergone, he be awarded the sentence of the period already undergone by him. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 6 10. 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. He further submits that Mithlesh Kumar Patle (PW-1) and Umrao Patle (PW-5), who are the eyewitnesses of the incident, have stated that they saw that the accused assaulted the deceased by Tangiya, due to which the deceased died, therefore, in view of the statements of the prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It has been contended that appellants has committed heinous crime of murder and in such circumstances, it is not the case where conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 of IPC requires to be altered to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. So far as conviction of the appellant No. 1 Ravi Kumar Yadav & appellant No. 3 Bhagwat Yadav for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is concerned. 12. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased was homicidal in nature ? 13. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr. Shiv 7 Narayana Gole (PW-16), who conducted postmortem had opined that death of the deceased was caused due to the impact of a blunt and hard object on the head, leading to cardiac and respiratory arrest. The injuries were antemortem in nature. The Doctor ultimately opined through his
Legal Reasoning
report the nature of death to be homicidal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby afÏrm that finding. 14. Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the accused/appellants herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question, which the learned trial Court has recorded in afÏrmative by relying upon the testimony of Dr. Shiv Narayana Gole (PW-16), who conducted postmortem has opined that death of the deceased was caused due to the impact of a blunt and hard object on the head, leading to cardiac and respiratory arrest. The injuries were antemortem in nature. The Doctor ultimately opined through his report the nature of death to be homicidal and the testimonies of Mithlesh Kumar Patle (PW-1) and Umrao Patle (PW-5), who are the eyewitnesses of the incident and they clearly deposed in their statement that on the date of incident they saw the accused assaulted the deceased due to which the deceased died. Thus, on the basis of testimonies of Dr. Shiv Narayana Gole (PW-16), Mithlesh Kumar Patle (PW-1) and Umrao Patle (PW-5), it is clear that it is the appellants herein who on the fateful date and time has caused grievous injuries to the deceased, due to which he died. As such, the learned trial 8 Court has rightly held that it is the appellants/accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased and caused his death. Accordingly, we hereby afÏrm the said finding. 15. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, whether the case of the appellants is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellants ? 16. The cause of death assigned in the postmortem report of the deceased as already noticed are ‘cardiac arrest and respiratory failure caused by a head injury’. 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. 17. 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