Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 10 CRA No. 817 of 2016 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.17 10:17:19 +0530 2025:CGHC:33030 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 817 of 2016 Saniyom @ Hero S/o Ramdayal Uraon Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Manikprakashpur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. Civil And Revenue District Ambikapur, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Seema Verma on behalf of Ms. Uttara For Respondents/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, P.L.
Legal Reasoning
Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 15/07/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.06.2016 passed in ST No. 248/2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Sarguja (Ambikapur)whereby the 2 / 10 CRA No. 817 of 2016 appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code R. I. For 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for one month 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.03.2009 at 4-5 p.m, near the grocery shop of Petha Ram, deceased Rambilu asked for Rajshree Gutka from the accused and both of them started abusing each other. At the same time, the accused threw Rambilu down and started beating him with his hands, fists and shoes and kicked him in the stomach and chest with the shoes he was wearing, due to which Rambilu started having trouble breathing. Patha, Meva and Guddu saw the fight and intervened. After this, the accused came again the next day to beat him and was strangling deceased Rambilu. Then Siyambar etc. intervened. As Rambilu was in severe pain, thereafter the son of the victim Prem took him to the Police Station to lodge a report. After the report, due to severe pain, he was admitted to the District Hospital for treatment, where Rambilu died during treatment on 02.04.2009. On the basis of the same, the FIR was lodged. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to 3 / 10 CRA No. 817 of 2016 the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 24.06.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. She would submit that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the incident happened on spur of moment and there was no intention to kill so as to take the case within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. The learned trial Court without there being any material against the appellant has convicted the appellant. She further submits that PW-2 son of the deceased himself has stated that the death of the deceased caused due to consumption of liquor. She further submits in order to convict the accused under section 304 Part-II, the intention of causing death is the necessary ingredients, which was absent in this case along with the knowledge. She also submits that during the scuffle no weapon was used which would show that the knowledge and intention were absent. As such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 4 / 10 CRA No. 817 of 2016 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the submission of the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The question for consideration is whether the accused assaulted the deceased and inflicted injuries on him due to which he died? 10. PW- 1 Prem, son of the deceased stated that on the day of the incident, son of Siyambar came and told him that the accused had beaten his father and thereafter he along with his wife went to the house of Siyambar and saw that his father's stomach was swollen and his father told him that he had a quarrel with the accused and he had beaten him. He also told that the accused threw him down and hit him in the stomach with his shoe, kicked him on the back and legs too. He also stated that his father was having breathing trouble due to the beating by the accused. He also stated that Petha, Meva and Guddu had seen the said fight and they had also tried to intervene. 11. PW-8 Rani the eye witness stated that at the time of the incident, the incident took place near the grocery shop of Petha. At the time of the incident, she was standing near the shop. At the same time, the deceased Ram Billu asked for gutka from the accused on whcih the accused threw the deceased down and started hitting 5 / 10 CRA No. 817 of 2016 him with kicks, punches, chest, legs, back, everywhere. At the same time, Anil and Meva came and tried to stop them. When Ram Billu fell, he vomited blood. He became nervous, his eyes became red. 12. PW-10 namely Ramprasad stated that the date of the incident, at about 3-4 o'clock, he was sitting near his barn (khaliyaan). At the same time, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused near Paitha Ram's grocery shop over asking for Rajshree Gutka. He further stated that the accused first slapped the deceased and when deceased stopped the slap, the accused hit the deceased with his shoe i.e. kicked him, due to which the deceased fell down. Then the accused hit deceased on his stomach and leg while slitting his throat. When the accused was beating deceased, at that time Neva Singh and Anil reached the spot and they intervened and stopped the fight. Due to pressure on the neck of deceased by the accused, there was a wound on his neck. Thereafter he was admitted in the hospital and the next day the deceased died. 13. PW-4 Dr. R.N. Gupta stated that the deceased was brought before him for examination and on examination the the following injuries were found :- 1. There was blue color around the right cheek and there was sub-conjunctival degeneration. 2 His stomach was hard and swollen (acute abdomen). He further stated that the injury was caused by a hard and blunt object and the time of injury was within a week. After examination, the patient 6 / 10 CRA No. 817 of 2016 was admitted to the Department of Male Surgery. The report is Ex.P.3. 14. PW-5 Dr. Anupam Minj, Medical Officer has stated that body of the deceased was brought for postmortem and at the time of the postmortem the body was stiff and was pale and the abdomen was bloated. On external examination there was a bruised wound on the left side of the neck. Its length was 6 cm and width was 0.25 cm towards the line. There was a horizontal lacerated wound on the right side of the neck which extended from Harrod Cartridge to the back side. Its length was 4 cm and width was 0.25 cm. There was an incised wound on the left side of dorsal bone number 12 of spine. Its length was 6 cm and width was 0.25 cm and there was an incised wound on the left side of dorsal bone number 10 of spine, whose size was 2 x 2 cm. He further stated that in the Internal examination:- Peritoneal cavity of abdomen was filled with peritoneal fluid and faecal matter, peritoneum was adhered to small intestine, there was a hole of one cm in jejunum of small intestine, there was swelling around the hole. The stomach was empty, the right chamber and left chamber of the heart were full, deformed, the placenta, kidney, brain, lungs were pale, the paleness of his body and the presence of fluid and faecal matter, accumulation of peritoneal over the hole and swelling indicate that the death was premature. He further stated that in his opinion, the death of the deceased Rambilu was caused by shock on account of perforation and peritonitis and the 7 / 10 CRA No. 817 of 2016 time period between the death of the deceased and the post- mortem was within 24 hours. 15. PW-12 Mewa Singh stated that he has not seen the incident and he knew about the incident from others. Further, he has been declared hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 16. The Supreme Court in Jagriti Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh held that Section 304 Part-Il comes into play when the death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but there is no intention on the part of the accused either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 17. In case of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another the Court succinctly examined the distinction between Section 299 and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and in para 12 of the judgment held as under: "In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is culpable homicide' but not vice- versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans' special characteristics of murder, is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, 8 / 10 CRA No. 817 of 2016 culpable homicide of the first degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined in Section 300 as murder. The second may be termed as 'culpabile homicide of the second degree. This is punishable under the 1 part of Section 304. Then there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second Part of Section 304." 18. It was further held that the difference between Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. The word "likely" in Clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of 'probable' as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words "bodily injury...sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury having regard to the ordinary course of nature. 19. It was laid down that the question whether is a murder or culpable homicide not amount to murder has to be decided on the suggestions. The first suggestion would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the 9 / 10 CRA No. 817 of 2016 accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code is reached. 20. Therefore, taking into the facts into chronologically order, it would lead to show that the intention and the knowledge on the part of the appellant/ accused to cause death with the act may cause death has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be unreasonable concluded that the appellant had intention to cause death of the deceased. The unfortunate scuffle had occurred after a sudden quarrel. 21. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Victim, further considering the evidence adduced by the victim which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, I am of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit any illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. 22. So far as, the sentence part is concerned, considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the fact that the incident took place around 15 years ago, the age of the appellant at the relevant time i.e. 22 years; he has no criminal antecedent; during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail since 2020; and did not misuse the liberty granted to him and keeping in view the Judgment of 10 / 10 CRA No. 817 of 2016 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellant back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served, if the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him i.e. 5 years 4 months. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is convicted under section 304 Part-II of the IPC and the jail sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 24. The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 25. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Jyoti