Mungeli Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhatt
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13587-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 827 of 2021 Shyamlal Banjare, S/o Naindas Banjare Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Khairjhiti, Police Station - Pathariya, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) (In Jail) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent/State : : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 21 .03.2025 1. Heard Ms. Anju Ahuja, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.25 10:53:52 +0530 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is 2 directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.07.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Section 302 of the Indian Sentence Rigorous imprisonment (for short, Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year R.I. more. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.08.2020, at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased, Niranjan Banjare, was abusing and threatening to assault his father, the accused. Due to this, a physical altercation ensued between the two, and the accused assaulted the deceased with a stone, causing blood to ooze from his mouth, beard, and nose. An application for medical treatment was filed for Niranjan Banjare (Ex.P/23), and his medical examination was conducted vide Ex.P/26. However, due to the serious nature of the injuries, he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. While being taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, he died en-route. Thereafter, a Police memo (Ex.P/25) was filed at the City Kotwali Police Station in Bilaspur. The case was registered at the City Kotwali Police Station in Bilaspur, and a notice for the panchnama of the body of the deceased was issued vide Ex.P/8. The body panchnama was prepared (Ex.P/7), and an application for the postmortem examination was recorded vide Ex.P/24. According to Dr. Ulhas Gonnare (PW-16), the body of the deceased was examined, and it was stated that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest and respiratory failure caused by a head injury. 3 4. Based on this, since the incident occurred within the jurisdiction of
Legal Reasoning
the Pathariya Police Station, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered vide Ex.P/10. A spot map (Ex.P/11) was prepared by the Patwari, and a intimation letter was issued vide Ex.P/13. The accused was taken into custody vide Ex.P/4, and the stone used in the crime, as well as the accused's lungi and vest, were seized vide Ex.P/3. The soil was seized from the spot (Ex.P/2), and a crime details form was prepared by the Police vide Ex.P/1. The clothes of the deceased were seized (Ex.P/16). The seized property was sent to the State Forensic Laboratory for examination vide Exs.P/18 & P/19, and the report was received vide Ex.P/21. 5. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur (C.G.), where Dr. Ulhas Gonnare (PW-16) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P/24 and found following injuries:- Injuries: 1. A lacerated wound, 4 cm x 5 cm in size, on the left eyebrow, extending up to the bone. 2. A lacerated wound, 2 cm x 5 cm in size, on the right eyebrow, extending up to the bone. 3. A linear lacerated wound, 1 cm x 2 cm in size, on the middle part of the forehead. 4. An abrasion, 2 cm x 1 cm in size. 5. A lacerated wound, 3 cm x 1 cm in size, on the left side of the nose, extending up to the bone. 6. A lacerated wound, 2.5 cm x 3 cm in size, on the left cheek, near the left side of the mouth. 4 7. A lacerated wound, 7 cm x 7 cm in size, on the lower part of the jaw, extending up to the depth of the skin. 8. A lacerated wound, 3 cm x 5 cm in size, was found on the left ear. 9. An abrasion and contusion, 8 cm x 10 cm in size, on the neck. There was a fracture of the lower jawbone, and blood was clotted below the neck. All the above injuries were antemortem (before death). Dr. Ulhas Gonnare (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 24 hours of the examination. 6. 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 Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 7. 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. 8. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The appellant/accused examined none in his defence. 9. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 14.07.2021, convicted the 5 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. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. She further submits that if the case of the prosecution is accepted on the face of it, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to deceased on the spur of the moment because the deceased was threatening the appellant to kill him and out of anger the appellant picked up a stone and hit the deceased, but he had no intention to kill him. 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 appellant is in jail since 21.08.2020 and he has completed near about 04 years and 07 months, 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. 6 11. 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 Ramashankar Banjare (PW-6) and Jeevan Lal Banjare (PW-7), who are the eyewitnesses of the incident, have stated that they saw that the accused assaulted upon head of his son by stone, 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 appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It has been contended that appellant has committed heinous crime of murder and in such circumstances, it is not the case where conviction of the appellant 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. 12. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 13. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased was homicidal in nature ? 14. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr. Ulhas Gonnare (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 7 antemortem in nature. The Doctor ultimately opined through his 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. 15. Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the accused/appellant 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. Ulhas Gonnare (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 Ramashankar Banjare (PW-6) and Jeevan Lal Banjare (PW-7), 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. Ulhas Gonnare (PW-16), Ramashankar Banjare (PW-6) and Jeevan Lal Banjare (PW-7), it is clear that it is the appellant 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 Court has rightly held that it is the appellant/accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased and caused his death. Accordingly, we hereby afÏrm the said finding. 8 16. 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 ? 17. 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. 18. 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