Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nagari, District
Case Details
KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 1 2025:CGHC:14355 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2344 of 2023 Sadaram Kamar S/o Late Sulal Kamar Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Kharkha, Police Station Nagari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Nagari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant(s) :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/03/2025 1. Though, today the present appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.2 of 2023, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and considering the period of detention of the appellant, 2. 3. the appeal is heard finally.
Decision
Accordingly, I.A. No.02 of 2023 stands disposed of. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.09.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, 2 Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No.24/2021, whereby the trial Court after holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. 4. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the charge against the appellant and has failed to prove the fact that the accused has assaulted the deceased and caused dangerous injury resulting into death of the deceased. 5. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Santuram Kumar lodged a report on 20/12/2020 before Nagari Police Station with the averment that on the night of 19/12/2020 at about 11:50 P.M., he came out of his house after hearing the sound of a fight and saw that his uncle’s son namely Sadaram Kumar was fighting with his uncle Sulal Kumar and Sadaram Kumar assaulted him with a stone, causing a fracture in the head of Sulal Kumar, his brain came out and he was lying dead in the C.C. road in front of his house. On the basis of such, the complainant went the concerned Police Station and lodged the report against the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. During the investigation, Panchnama of the dead body was prepared in the presence of witnesses, (Exhibit P-7). The dead body was sent to Government Hospital Nagri for postmortem and 3 postmortem report (Exhibit P-20) was obtained. Spot map of the incident (Exhibit P-4 and 5) were prepared thereafter, memorandum statement of the accused (Exhibit P-13) was recorded in front of witnesses and on the basis of memorandum statement, a sky blue coloured jeans full pant and black coloured sweater were seized as per seizure sheet (Exhibit P-11) on the presentation of the accused. The accused was arrested and arrest sheet (Exhibit P-15) was prepared. Blood stained and plain concrete were seized from the place of incident as per seizure sheet (Exhibit P-9) and one piece of flooring stone was seized as per seizure sheet (Exhibit P-10). The seized items in the case were sent to FSL Raipur through draft (Exhibit P-28) of Superintendent of Police Dhamtari and FSL report (Exhibit P-30) was obtained. After completing the entire investigation of the crime, the charge-sheet was presented against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Nagari, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Dhamtari. 7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-30). The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 3 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not 4 pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of impugned judgment and is confining his argument to the quantum of sentence only. He submits that incident had taken place on 19.12.2020, there was no pre-meditation and on the spur of moment incident had taken place, it was first offence of the appellant and thereafter he had not indulged himself in any other criminal activity. He further submits that learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and as the appellant has already suffered jail sentence of 4 years and 3 months, therefore, the sentence already undergone by him may be sufÏce to meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The injury found over the body of the deceased and cause of death is not substantially disputed by the appellant, otherwise established by the evidence of Dr. A.K. Netam (PW-8). 11. Dr. A.K. Netam (PW-08) conducted postmortem over the body of deceased vide Ex.P-20 and found that dead body was of Sulal Kumar son of Tejlal who was identified by Dashrath, Panku and Lokeshwar. On examination he found blood clots on the head, face 5 and chest of the deceased and a bone-deep incised wound measuring 10 x 2 cm on the front of the head. The left side of the skull was turned upside down due to which the brain was visible protruding out. There were no injury marks on any other part of the body except the head. The doctor has stated that due to fatal injury caused to the head of Sulal Kumar by some hard and blunt object, he went into coma which resulted in his death and the nature of death was homicidal. During cross-examination, witness Dr. A.K. Netam has ruled out the possibility that the type of head injury that Sulal Kumar has suffered could be caused by a person falling from a high place. The witness has also given an explanation that the injury that has occurred on the left side of the deceased's head cannot be caused by falling from a high place. He has also denied that the injury suffered by the deceased could have been caused by an accident. 12. Ku. Sudeshwari Kamar (PW-1) has stated in paras 2, 3, 4 and 5 of her statement that the appellant is her brother and at that time her mother Phuleshwari Bai and she live together. Her father Sulal who died about two-three months ago. Appellant Sadaram was drunk and started beating them, so they left the place out of fear. Sadaram was fighting with her mother Phuleshwari Bai and father Sulal. She do not know what the fight was about. The fight happened at 9 o'clock at night. Sadaram came home with his friend Keshavram, at drunken situation, at that time his friend Keshavram was not in drunken way. She do not know what Sadaram and Keshavram argued about because she was not there at that time. Sadaram 6 assaulted her father. She don't know with what object Sadaram assaulted her father. After assaulting her father, Sadaram ran away from there, she cannot tell where he ran. Sadaram was found two- three days later. 13. Mr. Santuram Kamar (PW-2) has stated in paras 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of his statement that the accused is a resident of his village and he recognized him. The incident took place three-four months ago. Accused Sadaram Kamar was drunk on the date of incident. Accused Sadaram Kamar had a fight with his uncle Sulal Kamar. The accused had hit Sulal Kamar with a stone due to which his head was fractured and Sulal Kamar's brain came out and he was covered in blood and he was lying dead on the CC road near his house. The villagers were informed about the death of Sulal Kamar. The villagers came to the spot and said to keep the body of Sulal Kamar inside the house. He along with Tribhuvan and Kankuram took the body of the deceased Sulal Kamar inside the house. Then they had reported the incident next day before the concerned Police Station. He had given the information of untimely and sudden death in the Police Station Nagari which is (Ex.P-2). He had lodged the First Information Report before the Police Station Nagari which is (Ex.P-3). 14. Considering the statement of Dr. A.K. Netam (PW-08) and his postmortem report (Ex.P-21) and taking into consideration the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 304 Part II of the 7 IPC. As such, his conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC is hereby afÏrmed. 15. So far as the sentence imposed upon the appellant is concerned, considering the fact that the appellant is aged about 18 years at the time of incident and incident took place in a heat of passion and on sudden provocation without any predetermination, nature of injuries and further considering the fact that the appellant is confining this appeal in relation to the sentence awarded by the trial Court only, as such, looking to the period of detention of the appellant in jail i.e. 4 years and 03 months of jail sentence, this Court finds it appropriate to reduce the sentence from RI for 10 years to RI for 5 years under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, as the appellant has already suffered the agony of criminal trial for so many years, that meets the ends of justice. 16. Consequently, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC is hereby maintained, however, his sentence is reduced from RI for 10 years to RI for 5 years. The fine sentence shall remain intact. 17. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as modified by this Court. 18. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Kunal (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE