Chattisgarh High Court
Saguni Pal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 844 of 2015
(Arising out of judgment/order dated 12.05.2015 in S.T.
No.345/2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj)
Saguni Pal, son of late Lakhan Pal, aged about 30 years, R/o
Nawadih, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through : Station House Officer, Police
Station Ramanujganj, Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For Respondent. : Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L. for the State
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
(06/04/2022)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure preferred by the Appellant is directed
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 12.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), in
S.T. No.345/2011, whereby the Appellant has been convicted
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC &
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of
Rs.500/-, failure to pay the fine amount, he shall have to
undergo additional R.I. for three months.
2. It is admitted position on record that deceased Lakhan
Pal had two sons namely Premchand (PW/3) and the Appellant
herein. At the time of incident, Premchand (PW/3) was residing
separately and running a betel shop, whereas the Appellant
and deceased were residing together.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.06.2011 at
about 9.30 am, the Appellant caused death of his father
Lakhan Pal by assaulting him with hands & fists, axe and club
& thereby committed the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC. Further case of the prosecution is that on 29.06.2011
at about 7.00 am, Appellant's wife Semkula developed
abdominal pain for which Appellant herein called one Shiv
Kumar Baiga (local Vaidya) for her treatment, which was
objected by deceased Lakhanpal being her father-in-law
asking him not to treat her by Baiga. Thereafter, the
Appellant hurling abuses assaulted the deceased by stake
(wooden piece by which animal is being tied) as a result of
which he became unconscious. When the Appellant was taking
his father Lakhanpal towards nursery forest by tying him on
his bicycle's carrier by bicycle tube, Vinod Pal (PW/1), Arjun Pal
(PW/2), Chandrika Pal (PW/4) and Ranjit Pal (PW/6) ran him
over and tried to chase the Appellant. Upon which, the
Appellant threw the bicycle and deceased Lakhanpal on the
ground, cut the tube with axe and assaulted the deceased on
his head & forehead by the handle (iklk) of the axe and
absconded along with his bicycle and axe. Immediately after
the said incident, the aforesaid witnesses (PW/1, PW/2, PW/4
and PW/6) took the deceased to Ramanujganj hospital,
however, he succumbed to the injuries on the way.
Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police station by
Premchand Pal (PW/3), pursuant to which, an FIR (Ex.P/16)
was registered against the Appellant herein. Inquest on the
body of deceased was conducted vide Ex.P/5 and dead body
was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health
Center, Ramanujganj, which was conducted by Dr. R.K. Tripathi
(PW/14) who gave his report (Ex.P/10) noticing incised wound
of 4 cm on lateral aspect to right eye with blood, temporal
bone was fractured, abrasion on left side of chest, and
abrasion on back of left side. The Autopsy Surgeon opined the
cause of death of deceased due to cardio respiratory failure on
account of head injury and internal bleeding & the death was
homicidal in nature.
4. On 30.06.2011, memorandum statement of
accused/appellant was recorded vide Ex.P/13, pursuant to
which, one Atlas bicycle, axe and club were seized vide
Ex.P/14. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination
to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, however, FSL report
has not been brought on record and in query reports (Ex.P/11
& P/12), the Autopsy surgeon opined that the injuries
sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the
said weapons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet
was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Ramanujganj, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of
Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Judge has framed the
charge against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the
prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited
24 documents from Exs.P/1 to P/24. Statement of the
accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. in which he abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence
and false implication. On behalf of defence, three documents
Exs.D/1 to D/3 were executed to substantiate its case.
6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the respective
parties and considering the material on record, has convicted
and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned herein
above.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecution has failed to bring home the offence of Section
302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that
even if the prosecution case is taken on its face value, at best,
the act of the appellant squarely falls within the ambit of
Section 304 Part-I. Learned counsel also submits that the
appellant is in jail since 30.06.2011 and thereby completed
more than 11 years, therefore, his sentence may be reduced
to the period already undergone by him setting aside the
conviction under Section 302 IPC.
8. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it
has been argued by learned counsel for the State that the trial
Court has rightly convicted the Appellant under Section 302
IPC and there is no infirmity in the same. Therefore, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
considered the rival submissions made herein above and
perused the material available on record.
10. The first question which arises for consideration by this
Court is whether the death of deceased Lakhan Pal was
homicidal in nature ?
11. The learned trial Court, after relying upon the testimony
of autopsy surgeon Dr. R.K. Tripathi (PW/14), postmortem
report (Ex.P/10) and the injuries suffered by the deceased, has
clearly recorded its finding that the death of deceased Lakhan
Pal was homicidal in nature. Even otherwise, the said finding
of the learned trial Court has not been seriously disputed by
learned counsel for the Appellant. We do not find any good
ground or reason to hold that the death of the deceased was
not homicidal in nature and hereby affirm the finding recorded
by the learned trial Court that the death of deceased Lakhan
Pal was homicidal in nature.
12. The next question is whether the death of the deceased
was caused by the Appellant herein.
13. In the instant case, the prosecution has examined Vinod
Pal (PW/1), Arjun Pal (PW/2), Chandrika Pal (PW/4) and Ranjit
Pal (PW/6) who have categorically submitted and supported
the case of the prosecution that when the Appellant was
taking his father Lakhanpal towards forest by tying him to a
bicycle tube on his bicycle's carrier, he was intercepted by
these witnesses, upon which, the Appellant threw the bicycle
and deceased Lakhanpal on the ground, cut the tube with axe
and caused axe injury on head and forehead of the deceased
by the handle (iklk) of the axe and absconded along with his
bicycle and axe. After the incident of assault, while the
deceased was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the
injuries on the way. The aforesaid witnesses (PW/1, PW/2,
PW/4 and PW/6) were subjected to lengthy cross-examination
in which they remained consistent in their statements that
they have seen the incident of causing assault to the
deceased by the Appellant. Apart from this, pursuant to the
memorandum statement (Ex.P/13) of the Appellant, axe and
club were recovered at his instance vide Ex.P/14 on which
blood was found. The seized articles i.e. axe and club were
sent for chemical examination, however, no FSL report has
been brought on record but the recovery at the instance of the
Appellant has been proved. Thus, considering the
corroborative piece of evidence of these witnesses, the
complicity of the Appellant in the crime in question stands
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Now, the question would be whether the Appellant can
be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC or it would
fall under any of the Exceptions to Section 300 IPC ?
15. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.06.2011 at
about 7.00 am, Appellant's wife Semkula developed
abdominal pain for which the Appellant called one Shiv Kumar
Baiga for her treatment, which was seriously objected by
deceased Lakhanpal not to get treated her daughter-in-law by
Baiga. Being annoyed with the act of deceased, the Appellant
started quarreling with the deceased and assaulted him by
stake (wooden piece by which animal is being tied) as a result
of which he became unconscious. Thereafter, while the
deceased was being taken by the Appellant after tying him to
a bicycle tube on his bicycle's carrier, Vinod Pal (PW/1), Arjun
Pal (PW/2), Chandrika Pal (PW/4) and Ranjit Pal (PW/6) noticing
this tried to intercept the Appellant, upon which, he became
more angry and assaulted the deceased by handle of axe on
his head and forehead and thereafter, he absconded from the
spot. As such, the incident took place without premeditation
in sudden quarrel on the trivial issue of getting the Appellant's
wife treated by Baiga. Considering the nature and extent of
injuries, we find that the Appellant has not taken any undue
advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner, as such, the
offence would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, and it
can safely be inferred that while inflicting such injuries on the
person of the deceased, the Appellant had the intention of
causing such bodily injuries which was sufficient to cause his
death. Being so, he is liable to be convicted under Section 304
Part-I IPC.
16. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is
modified under Section 304 Part-I. As stated at bar, the
appellant is in jail since 30.06.2011 and has completed more
than 11 years of imprisonment. His sentence is modified to
that of the period already undergone.
17. In the result, conviction of the appellant under Section
302 IPC is modified under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentence
is reduced to the period already undergone. The Appellant be
released forthwith unless required in any other case.
18. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
JUDGE JUDGE
pkd
