Chattisgarh High Court
Sankar Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 January, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for Judgment on : 03/01/2022
Judgment Delivered on : 18/01/2022
Criminal Appeal No.1258 of 2018
Sankar Jangde S/o Ramprasad Jangde Aged About 70 Years R/o
Village Lachanpur, Choki Fasterpur, P. S. City Kotwali, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. City Kotwali, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
And
Criminal Appeal No.1423 of 2018
1. Pradeep Kumar Jangde S/o Sankar Jangde Aged About 29 Years
2. Andeep Kumar Jangde @ Bhukha S/o Sankar Jangde Aged About 26
Years
3. Kandeep Kumar Jangde @ Goldas S/o Sankar Jangde Aged About 24
Years
4. Maan Singh Jangde S/o Visvesar Jangde Aged About 28 Years
(All are r/o Village - Lachanpur, Choki-Fasterpur, P.S. - City Kotwali,
District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. City Kotwali, District Mungeli
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellants : Mrs. Kiran Jain, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Ravish Verma, Govt. Advocate.
-2-
D.B.- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
CAV Judgment
Per R.C.S. Samant, J.
18/01/2022
Heard.
1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated
31.07.2018 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in
Sessions Case No.21/2015 convicting the appellants in both the cases
for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 307 read with
Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. sentencing
them with R.I. for 01 year, 01 year, 01 month, 10 years with fine of
Rs.500/- and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- respectively.
2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are these that on 02.02.2015
at about 09:00 A.M., the complainant Santosh Jangde (P.W.-4) had
quarreled with appellant Pradeep Kumar. The appellants Pradeep
Kumar along with appellant Andeep Kumar Jangde, Kandeep Kumar
Jangde and Maan Singh Jangde thrashed the complainant on the spot.
The complainant Santosh Jangde (P.W.-4) informed about this incident
to his uncle Uttara and brother Hemant Jangde, who then went to the
house of appellant Sankar between 10:30 to 11:00 P.M., when the
appellant Sankar and the other appellants formed an unlawful assembly,
used abusive words, assaulted the complainant and others with clubs
and tabbal. Uttara Jangde received fatal injuries on his body and the
injured victim Hemant Kumar (P.W.-5) and others also suffered injuries
on his head and limbs. Complainant- Santosh Jangde (P.W.-4) lodged
F.I.R. in Police Station- Mungeli. The offences under Section 147, 148,
149, 302, 307 and 294 of I.P.C. were registered. The deceased Uttara
Jangde had died on the spot. One Dehati morgue intimation Ex.P/3 on
03.02.2015 was registered and inquest procedure was conducted. Dr.
G.B. Singh (P.W.-8) examined the dead body of the deceased- Uttara
Jangde and vide postmortem report Ex.P/20, he has opined that the
cause of the death of the deceased was excessive bleeding from the
various injuries found on his body. The other injured namely Hemant,
Santosh Kumar, Rohit Jangde, Chetu @ Omprakash were also
examined by Dr. Kamlesh Kumar (P.W.-11) which has been reported in
the respective M.L.C. reports. Rest of the investigation procedure was
conducted, completed and charge-sheet was filed.
3. The learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 294,
307 read with Section 149 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of
I.P.C. The appellants/accused persons denied the charges and pleaded
not guilty. The prosecution examined in total 12 witnesses. The
appellants/accused persons were examined by the Court under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. The appellants denied all the incriminating evidence
against them again pleaded not guilty and false implication. Opportunity
was sought for producing witness in defence but no witness was
examined in defence. The learned trial Court after giving the opportunity
of hearing to the State and to the appellants has passed the impugned
judgment, convicting and sentencing the appellants as mentioned here-
in-above.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants in both the
cases that the judgment of conviction against the appellants is
erroneous. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the
appellants beyond reasonable doubt. There are other contradictions and
omissions present in the statement of prosecution witnesses, which
make them unreliable and untrustworthy. But the same has been relied
upon by the learned trial Court.
5. According to the facts of the case, the deceased and the victims had
been to the place of appellant Sankar to quarrel with him and also to
assault the appellants. The appellants had in fact acted in self-defense.
Therefore, the case of the appellants is under exception. The incident
occurred all of a sudden after the arrival of the complainant party and
therefore, there was no premeditation and no formation of common
objective.
6. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh Vs. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh &
Others reported in (2017) 3 SCC 261 and Kattukulangara Madhavan Vs.
Majeed & Others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 568 and it is submitted that
specifically there is no overt act stated about by the witnesses with
respect to the appellant Sankar, hence, the conviction against the
appellants is not sustainable. Prayer has been made to allow the appeal
and acquit all the appellants.
7. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellants and submits that the prosecution has proved
its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Chetu @
Omprakash (P.W.-1), Rohit Kumar (P.W.-2), Dilip Kumar (P.W.-3),
Santosh Kumar (P.W.-4), Hemant Kumar (P.W.-5), are eye witnesses of
the case. The deceased Uttara Kumar had suffered nine injuries one of
which was incised wound, which has resulted in his death. The evidence
is very clear and categorical to show that all the appellants have
participated in the commission of offences, which show that they
intended to peruse the common object for committing the offence of
murder and attempt to murder. Hence, there is no case present for
acquittal of any of the appellants. Therefore, the appeals filed are fit to
be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
present on record.
9. Considered on the submissions, Chetu @ Omprakash (P.W.-1) has
stated that Santosh Kumar (P.W.-4) was assaulted and injured by the
appellants Pradeep Kumar along with appellant Andeep Kumar Jangde,
Kandeep Kumar Jangde and Maan Singh Jangde with clubs. He
discussed about this incident with his uncle- Uttara Kumar, brothers-
Rohit Kumar (P.W.-2), Dilip Kumar (P.W.-3) and Hemant Kumar (P.W.-5)
and all of them went to the house of the Sankar to seek explanation
about the incident that had occurred with Santosh Kumar (P.W.-4). He
has stated that on arriving near the house of appellant- Sankar and all
the appellants made exclamation that all of you have come again, they
used abusive words, started throwing brickbats, then they armed
themselves with club sticks and tabbal (axe) and assaulted Uttara
Kumar, who fell down injured on the spot and died. Subsequent to that,
all the appellants assaulted and injured Hemant Kumar (P.W.-5), the
witness himself and Rohit Kumar (P.W.-2). In cross-examination, his
statement regarding the incident has remained unrebutted. He has
admitted the suggestion that he has married the ex-wife of appellant
Sankar. He has denied the suggestion regarding enmity with the
appellant Sankar and others on this account, he has not made any other
admission as such on the basis of which, his statement in examination-
in-chief can be regarded as rebutted.
10. Rohit Kumar (P.W.-2) is the eye witness and victim of the incident has
supported the version of Chetu @ Omprakash (P.W.-1) in his
examination in chief. In cross-examination, there is no such admission
made by him, on the basis of which, his statement in examination-in-
chief can be regarded as rebutted and also that all the appellants had
acted in unison in assaulting the deceased and the other victims.
11. Same is the statement of Dilip Kumar (P.W.-3), who has remained firm
on such statement in cross-examination and also Santosh Kumar (P.W.-
4) as the complainant, who has confirmed the statement made by Chetu
@ Omprakash (P.W.-1) stating that all the appellants equally
participated in assaulting, causing death of deceased Uttara Kumar and
injuring the other victims. In cross-examination, he has remained firm on
the statement given by him in examination-in-chief and there are no
other circumstances established on the basis of which, it can be held
that he is making a false statement.
12. Hemant Kumar (P.W.-5) is another eye witness and victim of the case,
he has stated about the previous incident in which Santosh Kumar
(P.W.-4) was assaulted by the Pradeep Kumar Jangde regarding which,
he was informed and subsequent to which, he and others went to the
house of the appellants, where the incident occurred, in which Uttara
Kumar was done to death and other witnesses were assaulted and
injured by the appellants. He has remained firm on this statement in his
cross-examination and there is no admission made by him to show
which may be regarding self-contradiction to his statement in his
examination-in-chief and no other circumstance is established, on the
basis of which, it can be held that this witness may be making an
untruthful statement.
13. The statement of the witnesses has been corroborated by Dr. Kamlesh
Kumar who has found various injuries on the body of Santosh Kumar
(P.W.-4) vide Ex.P/22. He also examined Chetu Ram @ Omprakash and
found injuries on his body vide report Ex.P/25. Similar injuries were
reported with respect to Hemant Jangde vide EX.P/23 and Rohit
Ex.P/24. There is no explanation in his cross-examination that the
witness could have been injured otherwise than the injuries being
inflicted upon them.
14. Dr. G.B. Singh (P.W.-8) conducted the postmortem examination of the
deceased Uttara Kumar and stated about finding injuries as follows:-
1. One lacerated wound was found on the left side of the mouth of size
0.5x0.5 cm.
2. One lacerated wound was found below the lower lip of size 6x1x1
cm.
3. The mandible bone was fractured.
4. The nasal bone was fractured.
5. Both the zygomatic bones were fractured.
6. One incised wound was found on the chin of size 4x1x1 cm.
7. One lacerated wound was present on the left side of the head of
temporoparietal region measuring 8x2x1 cm. along with clotted
blood.
8. One incised wound was present on the left side occipital region of
size 5x2x1 cm. having blood clots.
9. One lacerated wound was present on the left elbow of size
1x0.5x0.2 cm he has opined that one incised injury was caused by
sharp object and rest of the bones were caused by the hard and
blunt object who were antenatal in nature.
After making internal examination vide report
Ex.P/20, he has opined that death of the deceased was caused due to
excessive bleeding resulting from the various injuries and shock. In
cross-examination, his statement has not been rebutted in any manner.
There is no such explanation as to who else may have caused such
injuries to the deceased, however, the eye witness account of the
witnesses discussed here-in-above clearly mentions that it was the
appellants in both the cases, who had inflicted various injuries upon the
body of the deceased- Uttara Kumar, which had resulted in his death.
15. After considering on this evidence of the witnesses, there appears to be
no need to take into consideration the evidence of other witnesses of
investigation procedure. In the reliance of the appellants on the
judgment of Supreme Court in the Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh Vs.
Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh (Supra) and on Kattukulangara Madhavan
Vs. Majeed (Supra), the Supreme Court has made observations on the
basis of the facts and evidence present in these case. The facts and
circumstances present in this case are totally different, therefore, these
citations do not give any guidance in the present cases. Therefore, we
are of the considered view that there is no case present for acquitting
the appellants in both the cases. Ground of self-defense has been
neither pleaded nor proved. Only for the reason that the incident has
occurred in front of the house of the appellants, it cannot be held that it
is a case of self-defense. Apart from that, there is no evidence regarding
the appellant party having suffered any injury in that incident. Hence,
both the appeals filed are without any substance, therefore, both the
appeals are dismissed.
16. With these observations, both these Criminal Appeal stand disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Monika
