Basant vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 835 Chatt

                                                                   NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            CRA No. 978 of 2017

      Basant S/o Asharam Korva, Aged About 26 Years R/o Bagdoli,
       Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

                                                            ---- Appellant

                                   Versus

      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police
       Station Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

                                                         ---- Respondent

For Appellant :Ms. Sofia Khan, Advocate. For State/Respondent :Mr. Amit Singh, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board

05.07.2021

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

25.09.2014, passed in Sessions Trial No.39/2014 by the

learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Distt.

Surguja (C.G.) wherein, the Appellant has been convicted for

the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC

and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years.

2. According to the case of prosecution, on 21.03.2014,

deceased Sakharam lodged a report at Police Station, Sitapur

(Ex.P-7) to the effect that on 17.03.2014, when he was in his

house at that time, the Appellant came there abused him with

filthy language and also assaulted him with the help of hand

and fist on his abdomen due to that he sustained injuries. On

the basis of above, offence under Section 294, 506 & 323 of

the IPC was registered against the Appellant. During course

of treatment of the deceased/complainant, after some days he

died. Thereafter, offence under Section 302 of the IPC was

added. Later on, statements of witnesses recorded under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation,

charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the

charges against the Appellant. To robe the Appellant in the

crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as many as

9 witnesses. In the statement of the Appellant recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he has pleaded her innocence and

false implication in the matter, however, no defence witness

was examined by the Appellant. After completion of trial, Trial

Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in

Para 01 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the

prosecution agency has failed to prove the guilt of the

Appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. She further submits

that there are material contradictions and omissions in the

deposition of prosecution witnesses. Inspite of that, the Trial

Court has convicted the Appellant. Hence, his conviction is

not sustainable.

4. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposed the appeal

and supported the impugned judgment.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

parties and perused the record minutely. I have also gone

through the statements of the witnesses.

6. Wife of deceased Saraswati Bai (PW-1), in her Court

statement has categorically stated that on the date of incident

when she was preparing food in her house at that time the

Appellant came there and kicked her husband on his

abdomen due to which he fell down on the floor. Thereafter,

the Appellant fled away from the spot. The above statement of

this witness has not been rebutted during her cross-

examination. Uday Kumar Gupta (PW-2) also deposed that

after the incident when he reached house of the

deceased/complainant at that time the deceased told him that

the Appellant has assaulted him. The above statement of this

witness has also not been rebutted during his cross-

examination.

7. Looking to the above statements of the above witnesses, it is

well established that at the time of incident, the Appellant has

assaulted the deceased due to that during course of

treatment, he died. Thus, in my considered view, the Trial

Court has rightly convicted the Appellant.

8. The conviction of the Appellant under Section 304 Part 2 of

the IPC is affirmed and with regard to the sentence part,

considering the fact that the Appellant has undergone 7 years

4 months out of 10 years of jail sentence, he has no criminal

antecedent and suddenly, in a fit of rage, the incident has

been taken place. Looking to the above facts, against the

conviction, the Appellant is sentenced to the period already

undergone by him. The fine sentence for the offence

punishable under Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC is also

affirmed.

9. It is reported that the Appellant is in jail, he be released

forthwith if not required in any other case.

10. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of

this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham