Raigarh (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raigarh District
Case Details
1 CRA No. 823 of 2025 2025:CGHC:39424-DB NAFR SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.08.08 18:37:50 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 823 of 2025 Bhojram Sidar S/o Shri Sukul Sidar Aged About 50 Years R/o Milupara Thana - Tamnar District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent/State : : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 07 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the 2 CRA No. 823 of 2025 respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘B.N.S.S.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.04.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 70/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section U/s 302 of the Indian Penal Sentence Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. Code 1,000/-, with default stipulation. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.06.2019 at 10:30 AM, father of the deceased Urmila lodged a report against the accused, who is the husband of deceased, at Police Station Lailunga to the effect that the accused had brought his daughter Urmila and her children to Bhakurra and left them there and went to his home. On 04.06.2019 at about 10:00 PM, he came to their house and went to Sarasmal wedding and after drinking alcohol at the wedding, he came home at about 08:00 PM and started abusing Urmila and asked her to immediately go to Milupara with him. When Urmila refused to go at night, the accused started abusing and threatening to kill her and hit Urmila on her stomach with the sickle in his hand, due to which, she got injured and was admitted for treatment at Community Health Centre, Lailunga. On the basis of the above report,
Legal Reasoning
First Information Report (Ex P-1) was registered against the accused at Police Station Lailunga under Crime No. 99/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 part-2 of IPC. 3 CRA No. 823 of 2025 4. During investigation, spot map (Ex.P/2) was prepared and after due investigation, the Police filed charge-sheet against the appellant before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial from where the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 5. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and proceeded on trial. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. 7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 05.04.2025, convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 8.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence available on record in its proper prospective and thereby committed grave error in being selective in appreciating those piece of evidence which are incriminatory to the appellant/accused and discarded those piece of evidence which are favourable to the appellant. The learned trial Court has 4 CRA No. 823 of 2025 failed to see that there is no eyewitness to the incident and there are material omission and contradiction in statements of prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that the conviction of appellant is purely based on the evidence adduced by the police ofÏcials during investigation which is highly unreliable, though their evidence has not been duly corroborated by the independent witness. He would further contend that the appellant without any basis has been falsely roped in the present case as the learned trial Court has failed to consider that the prosecution could not prove any incident against the accused. He further submits that there was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant 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, as the appellant is in jail since 27.07.2019 and he has completed more than 06 years of his jail sentence, and 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. 9. 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 5 CRA No. 823 of 2025 clinching nature. He further submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It has been contended that the appellant has committed heinous crime of murder and in such circumstances, it is not the case where conviction of the appellant for the 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. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. The question for consideration would arise before this Court whether the appellant has committed such offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution for proving its case beyond reasonable doubt examined the witnesses whose statements have been recorded before the trial Court observed hereinbelow. 12. PW/1 – Father of deceased stated in his statement that his daughter Urmila was married to the accused Bhojram. It was the wedding of his nephew's daughter, wherein the accused came with his wife and children and after the wedding ceremony, the accused left his wife and children at his house and went to his home. He further stated that after about two- three days, the accused went to attend a marriage ceremony in village Sarasmal from where, he came to his village Bhakurra. The accused came around evening and he was in inebriated condition and told his wife to return home, then she said that it is late night and the children are small, so 6 CRA No. 823 of 2025 we will not go now, we will go in the morning. Upon which, a dispute occurred between them. Thereafter, the accused left his house, however, after some time came back to his house and again asked his wife to go home, then his wife told him to stay here, we will go in the morning. He further stated that he, his wife (PW/4), his son, the accused, his daughter and her children were sleeping in the same courtyard. After some time, he saw that the accused hit his daughter in the stomach with a sickle. Due to which, she suffered a deep cut injury on her stomach, the accused fled from there. His son Dil Sagar chased the accused, but he could not catch him. Thereafter his daughter was taken to Lailunga Government Hospital. The next day he and his son went to Lailunga police station and lodged a report against the accused. His daughter was referred to Raigarh for treatment, she was admitted there for about one and a half month. He further stated that her entire stomach was burst, so the doctor operated on her injuries. After one and a half month, the doctors said to take her home, thereafter they brought her back home and after 4-5 days, she died due to the injury in her stomach. 13. PW/2 – brother of the deceased also stated that on the fateful day his brother-in-law came to their house inebriated and emphasized his sister to go home with him in the late night. After some conversation, he agreed to stay their house and slept there. At midnight, his wife and his sister went out to answer the nature’s call, they came back and were lying down. After about 5-10 minutes, when he heard his sister’s screaming, he came out and saw that a sickle was stuck in her stomach and she was struggling. After that he called the ambulance. His parents told him that the 7 CRA No. 823 of 2025 accused had hit Urmila in the stomach with a cleaver/sickle and they were chasing the accused but the accused had fled. Thereafter, we took her to the government hospital in Lailunga. PW/4- mother of the deceased also corroborated the prosecution story and facts narrated by the above witnesses. 14. PW/8 – Dr. Gulshan Sidar, posted and working as a Medical OfÏcer in CHC Lailunga from 25.01.2017 to 26.10.2022, who treated the deceased, stated in his deposition that on examining the injured he found the following injuries- (01) The injured had a cut wound on her stomach with red blood stains in which the intestines were protruding, its size was about 3x1x2 cm. The injury to the injured could have occurred within 24 hours. The injured was referred for sonography. It was caused by a hard and sharp instrument. He further stated that according to his query report, the sickle was made of iron and its handle was made of wood, one side of which was sharp and the other side was blunt and pointed towards the front. The total length of the sickle was 51 cm, the roundness of the handle was 8.5 cm, the width of the middle part of the iron of the sickle was 2.5 cm, the roundness towards the handle was 1.5 cm and the front part of the sickle was pointed. The total weight of the sickle was 240 grams. He gave his opinion- The injury to the victim could have been caused by the sickle presented for query (Ex.P/12). The sickle presented for query was sealed and handed over to the constable for chemical examination. 8 CRA No. 823 of 2025 15. PW/07 – Dr. Manoj Kumar Patel, Medical OfÏcer, Community Health Centre, Lailunga, Raigarh, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased submitted his report Ex.P/10 wherein the injuries sustained by the deceased has been elaborated by him. He stated that upon external examination of the dead body, it was found that the body was covered with a white blouse and a small green cloth, the eyes were open, there was stiffness in both the legs, there was a five cm long half stitched part below the navel from where the inside of the body was visible, an old healed wound was present on the right side of the stomach, there was no discharge of stool and urine. According to his report, the injury described in the abdomen appeared to have been caused by a hard and sharp instrument Further the doctor gave his opinion – According to him, the death of the deceased was due to shock caused by injury in the stomach by a hard and sharp instrument, the death was homicidal and appeared to have occurred within 24 hours of the post-mortem. 16. Perusal of the above statement would show that the accused, in an intoxicated condition, has assaulted his own wife with a sickle, due to which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries in her stomach and after treatment of more than one and a half month, succumbed to death. 17. From the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant/accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased and caused her death. Accordingly, we hereby afÏrm the said finding. 9 CRA No. 823 of 2025 18. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, whether the case of the appellant 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 appellant. 19. 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. 20. 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 and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difÏcult to perceive that they connote different things. Even in some English decisions, the three ideas are used interchangeably and this has led to a certain amount of confusion.”