Chattisgarh High Court
Purushottam And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 December, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2014
1. Purushottam, S/o Shobhit Dhruv, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vill. Bhawa, P.S.
And Tah. Patewa, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.), Civil And Rev. Dist. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Panchuram, S/o Purushottam Dhruv, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vill. Bhawa,
P.S. And Tah. Patewa, Dist. Mahasamund C.G., Civil And Rev. Dist.
Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
3. Panchram, S/o Purushottam Dhruv, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vill. Bhawa, P.S.
And Tah. Patewa, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.) Civil And Rev. Dist. Mahasamund,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellants
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Patewa, Tah. Patewa, Dist. Mahasamund,
(C.G.), Civil And Rev. Dist. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Appellants : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
For State/Respondent : Shri Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer.
DIVISION BENCH
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
Per, Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.
16/12/2021
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 05/09/2014
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) District -
Mahasamund, (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.20/2014 wherein appellants
are convicted and sentenced as under :-
Conviction Sentence
U/s 323 of the I.P.C. R.I. for one year.
U/s 302 of the I.P.C. R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- and
in default of payment of fine amount, 2
months additional R.I.
Both sentences to run concurrently.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 20.12.2013, at about 3:00 P.M.,
deceased Yogesh Chandrakar came along with Kuber Chandrakar
(PW-1) to the house of the appellants for demanding the amount
borrowed by the appellants which was amounting to Rs.45,000/-. The
deceased entered the house of the appellants while complainant
Kuber Chandrakar (PW-1) was waiting outside. After 15 minutes, the
deceased came running from the house of the appellants exclaiming
bachao! bachao! who had one injury on his head. The appellants
followed the deceased armed with clubs and assaulted him again
causing him various injuries all over the body. The deceased became
semi unconscious. The complainant Kuber Chandrakar (PW-1) in an
attempt to rescue the deceased from the appellants, during which he
was also assaulted and suffered injury on his elbow on his left hand.
He took the deceased on motorcycle and admitted him in a
Government Hospital, Baghbahara, where he was given preliminary
treatment and then he was referred to a hospital in Raipur where the
deceased was admitted. The deceased expired on 22.12.2013. Merg
intimation was lodged by Kuber Chandrakar (PW-1). He also lodged
Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) with the police personnel from police station,
Baghbahara. Subsequent to the death of the deceased, the merg
intimation (Ex.P-30) was lodged in the police station, Baghbahara.
First Information Report (Ex.P-31) was lodged on the information given
by Kuber Chandrakar (PW-1). The police has investigated the case
and charge-sheeted the appellants of the commission of offences
under Sections 294, 506, 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellants
under Sections 294, 506, 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. The appellants pleaded not guilty. The trial was
conducted in which the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses. On
conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. No defence witness was examined.
The trial Court after hearing the arguments has passed the impugned
judgment convicting and sentencing the appellants in the offences
mentioned herein above.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there is no
evidence present to show that the appellants had any intention to
cause the death of the deceased Yogesh Chandrakar. The event had
been this, that deceased had been making demand of the amount
borrowed by the appellants because of which the dispute arose and
out of sudden provocation, the appellants have assaulted the
deceased without any intention of causing his death. It is also reflected
from the statements of prosecution witnesses who have admitted that
when the witnesses came to rescue of deceased, the appellants left
the deceased and went away. Therefore, the conviction under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. The offence that has
been committed by the appellants is clearly covered under Section 304
Part 2 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the appellants be granted
benefit by reduction in the conviction and reduction in the sentence.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by
the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the prosecution
has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Cause of death of the
deceased is clearly the injuries that have been inflicted by the
appellants to the deceased on his body. Therefore, it is the intentional
act of the appellants for causing death of the deceased. Hence, there
is no ground present to interfere with the impugned judgment.
6. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the
statement of witnesses and other annexed documents available on
record minutely.
7. Kuber Chandrakar (PW-1) has stated in his examination-in-chief that
on the date of incident, he was present outside the house of the
appellants when he saw the deceased running out of the house of
appellants exclaiming bachao! bachao! holding his head with one hand
and he also saw injury on his head. This witness also saw the
appellants following the deceased armed with clubs, who again
assaulted the deceased in the presence of this witness. This witness
made an attempt to rescue the deceased but he himself was assaulted
and received injuries on elbow of his left hand. The deceased was then
taken to the hospital, admitted, provided treatment but he succumbed
to the injuries on 22/12/2013. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) was lodged by
this witness in the hospital. In cross-examination, statement of this
witness has remained unrebutted. Moolchand (PW-3) is the neighbour
of the appellants, who saw the appellants assaulting the deceased with
clubs, hands and fists. He also made an attempt to rescue the
deceased but he was slapped by Panchram (appellant No.3), because
of which he came back to his house. His statement has remained
unrebutted in cross-examination. Dhansheela (PW-4) is an another
neighbour of the appellants. She has also witnessed that appellants
were assaulting a person who was an outsider.
8. Dr. L.N. Dhankar (PW-8) examined the injury of deceased Yogesh
Chandrakar who found one lacerated would of size 2" x ½" x ¼" on
the occipital region of the scalp and he opined that this injury was
caused by hard and blunt object. He also found one abrasion on the
left forehead of the deceased which was caused by some hard and
blunt object. The report given by him is Ex.P-24. In cross-examination,
the presence of injuries on the body of the deceased has not been
disputed.
9. The deceased succumbed to injuries during treatment and on that
basis, the merg intimation (Ex.P-30) was recorded by police station
Baghbahara on 23.12.2013. The post-mortem examination was
conducted by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-17). He has mentioned in the post-
mortem report (Ex.P-22) that the deceased had one lacerated wound
in the parietal region measuring 4 cm along with contusion in the
occipital region. Another contusion of size 10 x 6 cm on the occipital
region of the head. On dissecting the same, he found hemorrhage in
that injury. Another injury was ecchymosis found on the right side of
the neck measuring 6cm x 3 cm. One ecchymosis of size 10 x 6 cm
was found on the left elbow along with fracture in the elbow joint. Other
injuries of contusion and abrasion have been reported to be found on
the left and right back, left shoulder, left leg, both big toes, on left side
of waist, right forearm, and on left hypocondrial region. Fracture on 7th,
8th , 9th rib of left side is also reported. This witness has opined that all
the injuries caused to the deceased were anti-mortem, caused by hard
and blunt object. Regarding the opinion of death, he has expressed
that due to complications from multiple injuries death was caused to
the deceased and that death has occurred due to cardio-respiratory
arrest. His report is Ex.P-32. In cross-examination, the finding of
various injuries on body of the deceased have not been disputed and
there is opinion of the examining Doctor that the cause of death had
been the complications due to various injuries caused to the deceased.
Hence, on this basis, it can be held that death of the deceased was
homicidal that has resulted due to infliction of the injuries by the
appellants and regarding which there is uncontradicted evidence of the
eye-witnesses. Therefore, the learned trial Court has correctly drawn
conclusion that the appellants are the persons who have caused death
of the deceased.
10. On considering the submission made by the counsel for the appellants,
it is found that none of the eye-witnesses have made any statement on
the basis of which it can be said that appellants caused various injuries
to the deceased having intention to cause his death. Kuber
Chandrakar (PW-1) is the most relevant witness who was in company
of the deceased and according to him, the purpose of visiting the
appellants by the deceased was only to demand for the money
borrowed by the appellants. There is no evidence present to show as
to what had occurred inside the house of the appellants and what was
the reason that the appellants started assaulting the deceased.
However, the dispute was present with respect to the demand of
money, and there is no suggestion from any of the evidence present
that the appellants had any motive for causing death of the deceased.
Hence, it appears that the incident has occurred due to some sudden
dispute between the appellants and the deceased in which the
appellants have unintentionally made use of the clubs, hands and fists
and assaulted the deceased. Although, the witnesses who came to
rescue the deceased were also assaulted by the appellants but when
the deceased was left by the appellants, he was not already dead and
his death has occurred after two days as a result of the complications
from the injuries caused to him. Hence, we are of the considered view
that in the present case, the appellants did not have any intention to
cause death of the deceased, although they had knowledge that the
injuries they have caused may result in the death of the deceased.
Therefore, it is a clear case which is covered under Section 304 Part 2
of the Indian Penal Code.
11. After the discussions that has been made herein above and on the
basis of conclusion drawn, this appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of
the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is modified
to conviction under Section 304 Part 2 of the Indian Penal Code. The
appellants herein have nearly completed about 8 years in the jail and,
therefore, it is ordered that the appellants are sentenced with jail
sentence already undergone by them. The conviction of the appellants
under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed. Hence, the
appeal is disposed of.
12. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this
judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Prakash
