Sankara, Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Of
Case Details
1 CRA No. 1085 of 2022 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.11 10:42:33 +0530 2025:CGHC:39770-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1085 of 2022 Jailal Markam S/o Late Gadarai Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Sankara, Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Dugli, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent/State : : Ms Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 08 .08.2025 1. Heard Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State. 2 CRA No. 1085 of 2022 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 53/2020, 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 15.11.2020, in the evening, the deceased Shishupal Gota was in his locality, in village Kukrikonha. The accused Jailal Markam of village Sankara had also gone to the same locality and narrated his old quarrel with the deceased and thereafter, he hit the deceased on his head with a bamboo stick and kicked him on the chest several times, due to which, the deceased died on
Legal Reasoning
the spot. On the basis of information, FIR was registered at Dugli Police Station against the accused. 4. During investigation, spot map (Ex.P/9) 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, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (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 3 CRA No. 1085 of 2022 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 16 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. 7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 31.05.2022, 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. She 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 failed to see that there is no eyewitness to the incident and there are material omission and contradiction in statements of prosecution witnesses. She 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. Learned counsel would further contend that the appellant without any basis has been falsely roped 4 CRA No. 1085 of 2022 in the present case as the learned trial Court has failed to consider that the prosecution could not prove any incident against the accused. She 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 has served more than two and half 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 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. 5 CRA No. 1085 of 2022 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/3 – Anita Mandavi being an eyewitness has narrated the ordeal of the incident as it is. She stated that she recognized the accused and also knows the deceased Shishupal. She stated that at the time of the incident, she was cleaning utensils in her courtyard. At the same time, the accused and the deceased came running, the deceased fell down on the ground then Jailal hit him with a stick, she tried to intervene. The accused hit him four-five times on his body then she shouted for help upon which, her sister-in-law who was eating food came out of her house. She asked her to give water to the deceased, however, he could not drink even a drop of water. She stated that he must have died, that’s why he could not drink even a drop of water. She further stated that the accused hit him with a bamboo stick which injured him right forehead further he kicked him on chest and leg with his foot thereafter he ran away from the spot. She stated that the deceased is not related to her, he was a resident of her village. Other prosecution witnesses also corroborated the prosecution story and facts narrated as it was and endorsed the evidence to afÏrm the case beyond reasonable doubt. 6 CRA No. 1085 of 2022 13. PW/07 – Dr. J. K. Nag, Medical OfÏcer, C.H.C. Nagri, District Dhamtari, who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased submitted his report Ex.P/13 wherein the injuries sustained by the deceased has been elaborated by him. He stated that the body of the deceased was brought before him for examination on 16.11.2020 and at that time he was dead. External Examination- The said dead body was lying on its back. It was the dead body of a male who was of normal height. During the external examination, he found that there was a 4 x 1 cm parallel injury on the right side of the head which was slanting. The injury marks caused by some heavy object on the right side of the head were clearly visible and the injury was red. There was another injury above both the injuries whose size was 3 x 1/2 cm. During the external examination, he found injury marks of 2 x 1 cm on the right side behind the head. There was a 2 x 2 cm scratch on the right side of the deceased's face below the eye. Next to that injury, there was another injury measuring 2 x 1.5 cm. There were 1 x 1/2 cm scratch marks near the left eye. There were 5 x 2 cm scratch marks on the left side of the deceased's forehead. There was a 1 x 1/2 cm scratch mark above the left ear. Both eyes were closed and the pupil was dilated and still. Both his ears were normal. Foam came out of the deceased's nose that was wet at the time examination. Mouth of the deceased was closed and his tongue was inside. The nails of both the hands had turned blue. There were 1 x 1 cm deep scratch marks on the left knee. The whole body was stiff. The private parts were normal. All the injuries suffered by the deceased were made before his death. 7 CRA No. 1085 of 2022 Internal examination- Skull, skin of cranium and vertebrae and parietal bone, there was a blood clot between the septum and the respiratory tract. All the injuries to the deceased were due to head injuries and the deceased had subdural hemorrhage. The diaphragm, ribs were soft, normal. The lung was congested. Further the doctor gave his opinion – According to him, the deceased died due to a deep injury on his head, which led to vomit going into his windpipe and causing difÏculty in breathing. The nature of the deceased's death was circumstantial. The deceased died 18 to 24 hours before his examination. The nature of the injury sustained by the deceased was 18 to 24 hours before post-mortem. 14. Perusal of the above statement and particulary analysis of the statement of PW/12-Ramchand Mandavi would show that Sukhwati is the second wife of accused whose residence is village Kukrikonha. On the day of festival of Diwali, the accused came to his wife's house. The deceased Shishupal Gota met the wife of the accused and joked, upon which, there was a dispute arrived at between them, thereafter in heat of passion and in grave anger, the accused assaulted the deceased with bamboo stick, due to which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to death. 15. 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 his death. Accordingly, we hereby afÏrm the said finding. 8 CRA No. 1085 of 2022 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. 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 different things. Even in some English decisions, the three ideas are used interchangeably and this has led to a certain amount of confusion.”