Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.24 12:27:58 +0530 2025:CGHC:26730-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1541 of 2024 1 - Sukhlal Gond S/o Late Premnath Gond, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Chatakpur Dhaurpur, P.S.- Dhaurpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Somar Saay Gond S/o Late Premnath Gond, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Chatakpur, Dhaurpur, P.S.- Dhaurpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) versus ... Appellants 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Dhaurpur, District Sauguja (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Appellants For Respondent/State : : Mr. Shivang Dubey, 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 23 .06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivang Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State. 2 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants/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 04.07.2024, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2020, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section U/s 302/ 34 of the Indian Each appellant Sentence shall undergo Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with default stipulation. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant Trilochan Ram (PW-4) came to Dhaurpur police station and told that he received the information via his phone that his brother in law Premnath was beaten to death by his sons Shukhelal Gond and Somar Saay Gond. After getting the information he immediately went to see his brother in law and found wounds on his body, head, mouth, ear, face, chest, hands, legs. He suspects that his sons Shukhlal Gond and Somar Saay Gond have killed their father Premnath Gond by beating him. In the past also they had beaten their father many times for money. On the basis of the report, case was registered against the appellants. 4. Based on this, since the incident occurred within the jurisdiction of
Legal Reasoning
the Dhaurpur Police Station, District Sarguja, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered vide Ex.P/12. A spot map was prepared by the Patwari. 3 5. 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 Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 6. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302/ 34 of the IPC and proceeded on trial. The appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. In defence, statement
Legal Reasoning
of Ms. Chandrawti (DW-1) and Mr. Padki Ram (DW-2) was also recorded. 8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 04.07.2024, convicted the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/ 34 of the 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, 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 appellants/accused and discarded 4 those piece of evidence which are favourable to the appellants. The learned trial Court has failed to see that the 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 appellants 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 appellants 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 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/ 34 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC. Further, as the appellants are in jail since 11.05.2019 and they have completed more than 06 years, and therefore, considering the period they had already undergone, they be awarded the sentence of the period already undergone by them. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has 5 proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. He further submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302/ 34 of the IPC. It has been contended that the appellants have committed heinous crime of murder and in such circumstances, it is not the case where conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302 & 34 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. 12. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is crystal clear that the accused persons are not doing any work and they fully dependent upon their father (deceased) and used to demand money from him, time to time. 13. PW/4 Trilochan Ram is the informant. He stated that his wife and the deceased are the siblings. He categorically stated that he saw several injuries on the body of the deceased. PW/10 Dr. Mahesh Kumar who conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased submitted his report Ex.P/21. The doctor opined that cause of death was shock due to fracture of right temporal bone and rupture of gastric organ (Liver). Aaccording to him. the nature of the death was strong probability of homicidal. The duration of death was 06-12 hours. On the body of the deceased, lacerated wounds, abrasion and bruise were also present. According to the doctor, the clotted blood was present between scalp and skull bone on frontal region. 6 14. From the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellants/accused who have 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 their conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellants ? 16. 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 and mean the same thing more or less and intention