Petala @ Gagaru vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3685 Chatt

                                                                                                  NAFR
                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 Criminal Appeal No.441 of 2015
   Petala @ Gagaru, son of Vanshi, Caste Kuduk Backward Class, Occupation
   Agriculturist, aged about 40 years, resident of Village Ghatakwali, Junapara,
   Police Station City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                        ---- Appellant
                                                      versus
   State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station City Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District
   Bastar, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                      --- Respondent
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   For Appellant                      :                 Shri Udho Ram Koshaley, Advocate
   For Respondent                     :                 Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
                       Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                                         Judgment on Board

   Per Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

14.12.2021

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused against the

judgment dated 7.7.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at

Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.23 of 2014, whereby the accused

has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of

Rs.2,000.

2. According to the case of prosecution, deceased Maniram had

agreed to purchase a piece of land from the Appellant and against

that he had paid him an advance. Later on, the Appellant sold that

piece of land to some other person and instead of refunding the

advance in full to Maniram, he refunded him a part thereof only. On

26.12.2013, i.e., the date of incident at about 5:30 p.m., Maniram

and the Appellant met at the house of Sukru. There, Maniram

made demand for refund of the balance of advance. On this, a

dispute took place between them. On being inculcated, the

Appellant went out from there. It is the further case of the

prosecution that same day at about 6:30 p.m., Maniram came out

of the house of Bhushan (PW9). At that time, the Appellant came

there and gave 3 blows on the stomach of Maniram with a knife and

fled from there. Injured Maniram was taken to the hospital. He was

first medically examined by Dr. Mahendra Prasad (PW11). His

report is Ex.P11. The matter was reported by Hemkant (PW1) in

Police Chowki, Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur vide Dehati Nalishi

(Ex.P1). On the basis of the Dehati Nalishi, First Information

Report (Ex.P13) was registered. Dying declaration (Ex.P12) of

Maniram was also recorded in the hospital. During the course of

treatment, Maniram died in the hospital on 27.12.2013. Morgue

intimation (Ex.P10) was recorded. Inquest proceeding (Ex.P3) was

conducted. Post mortem examination over dead body of Maniram

was conducted by Dr. Kiran Patil (PW6). Her report is Ex.P7.

Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a

charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. The Trial Court

framed charge against him.

3. To rope in the Appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 13

witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded

innocence. No witness was examined in his defence.

4. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial

Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in first

paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the

Appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court. The

prosecution has failed to establish any motive of the Appellant to

commit murder of Maniram. Though the eyewitnesses have

supported the case of the prosecution, there are material

contradictions in their statements. Therefore, their statements are

not reliable. Learned Counsel further submits that even if the entire

case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the act committed by the

Appellant falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part II of the Indian

Penal Code because from the statement of Hemkant (PW1), who

was present along with Maniram at the time of incident, it is well

established that on making demand of his money by Maniram from

the Appellant, a quarrel took place between them on the way and

as a result thereof the incident occurred. Hence, the conviction of

the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not

sustainable.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the above

arguments and supports the impugned judgment of conviction and

sentence.

7. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the statements of the witnesses and other evidence

available on record of the Trial Court with due care.

8. Maniram was first medically examined by Dr. Mahendra Prasad

(PW11) on 26.12.2013 at 8:30 p.m., i.e., immediately after the

incident. His report is Ex.P11. It was found by him that in the left

lumber region, a stab injury was present due to which omentum

had come out and there was also a cut injury present on the left

coastal region. He also found one cut injury on the fourth finger of

left hand. Later on, after death of Maniram, post mortem

examination on his dead body was conducted by Dr. Kiran Patil

(PW6) on 27.12.2013. According to the post mortem report

(Ex.P7), total 3 stab injuries were found on the stomach and chest

of the deceased. As opined by Dr. Kiran Patil (PW6), those injuries

were sufficient to cause death of Maniram in normal course and the

nature of death was homicidal.

9. As regards the incident, Hemkant (PW1) deposed that at the time

of incident, he was along with Maniram. He had gone to the house

of the Appellant along with Maniram to take the money of Maniram

from the Appellant. But, the Appellant was not found at his house.

Thereafter, the Appellant met on the way. There, Maniram

demanded his money from the Appellant. The Appellant assured to

give his money later. On the issue, an argument took place

between them. Suddenly, the Appellant took out a knife and

assaulted on the stomach of Maniram with that knife and thereafter

fled from there. According to this witness, the incident was

witnessed by Chaman (PW8) also. The above statement of

Hemkant (PW1) is duly corroborated by Chaman (PW8). In his

Court statement, Chaman (PW8) deposed that at the time of

incident, on being shouted by Maniram, he reached near the house

of Bhushan (PW9). At that time, the Appellant had caused

Maniram to fall down and he had mounted over him and he was

assaulting him with a knife and thereafter he fled from there.

Bhushan (PW9) also deposed that the incident took place in front of

his house. He further deposed that at that time when Maniram

came out of his house, the Appellant caught him and assaulted him

with a knife which was seen by this witness. However, during

cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of incident, he was

inside his house and when he came out of his house, he saw that

injured Maniram was lying down and the Appellant was standing

there with a knife.

10. On a minute examination of the above evidence adduced by the

prosecution, it is clear that Maniram sustained total 3 stab injuries

on his stomach and chest and as opined by Dr. Kiran Patil (PW6),

those injuries were sufficient to cause his death in normal course.

As further opined by her, the nature of death was homicidal. The

eyewitnesses of this case, i.e., Hemkant (PW1) and Chaman

(PW8) have supported the entire case of the prosecution. They

have categorically deposed that it was the Appellant who assaulted

Maniram on the stomach with a knife. Both the eyewitnesses

remained firm during their cross-examination. There is nothing on

record on the basis of which their statements could be disbelieved.

From the unrebutted statement of Bhushan (PW9), it is also

established that when he reached on the spot, at that time,

Maniram was lying down in injured condition and the Appellant was

standing there with a knife. Therefore, it is well established that the

injuries sustained by Maniram were caused by the Appellant

himself and those injuries were sufficient to cause his death.

11. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is established

that at the time of incident, the Appellant was laced with a knife.

From the statement of Hemkant (PW1), who was at the time of

incident present with Maniram, it is also established that first

Maniram along with this witness had gone to the house of the

Appellant to take his money from him. On not finding the Appellant

there, when they were returning, the Appellant met with them on

the way. At that time, on being demanded his money by Maniram

from the Appellant, a dispute took place between them. At that

time, the Appellant suddenly took out a knife and assaulted

Maniram with the knife on his stomach and thereafter fled from

there. Thus, it is clear that the Appellant was laced with the knife at

the time of incident. On the way, Maniram met with him and

demanded his money. On the issue, an argument took place

between them and during the argument the incident occurred. If

Maniram had not met with the Appellant on the way, the incident

would not have occurred. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

Appellant had gone on the way laced with a knife with an intention

to kill Maniram and assaulted him there. Looking to the above facts

as stated by Hemkant (PW1), in our considered opinion, the act

committed by the Appellant covers by Exception 4 of Section 300 of

the Indian Penal Code. Since there were 3 knife injuries caused by

the Appellant and all the injuries were caused on the stomach and

chest and as opined by Dr. Kiran Patil (PW6) those injuries were

sufficient to cause death of Maniram in natural course, it is

established that the Appellant caused the said injuries to Maniram

with the intention of causing his death or of causing such bodily

injury as was likely to cause his death. Thus, the act committed by

the Appellant falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part I of the

Indian Penal Code. Hence, the conviction of the Appellant is

altered from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304

Part I of the Indian Penal Code.

12. As regards sentence, for the offence under Section 304 Part I of the

Indian Penal Code, the Appellant is sentenced with rigorous

imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000 (Five Thousand).

In default of payment of the fine, he shall be liable to undergo

additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. If any amount has

already been paid towards fine, the same shall be adjusted against

the fine imposed today.

13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated

above.

                            Sd/-                                   Sd/-

              (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)            (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                         Judge                                    Judge

Gopal