Rahul Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 121 Chatt

                                                                             Cr.A.No.532/2013

                                          Page 1 of 6

                                                                                            AFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            Criminal Appeal No.532 of 2013

(Arising out of judgment dated 27-4-2013 in Sessions Trial No.13/2013 of
                   the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba)

Rahul Das, S/o Shri Gurbid Das, Aged 28 years, R/o Sarawmagla Road,
Indira Nagar, Korba (C.G.)
                                                        ---- Appellant

                                             Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Kotwali, Korba, Distt. Korba
(C.G.)
                                                          ---- Respondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant: Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, JJ

Judgment On Board (06/01/2023)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the

CrPC questioning legality, validity and correctness of the impugned

judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Korba in Sessions Trial No.13/2013, by

which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the

appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced

him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of ₹ 3,000/-, in

default of payment of fine to further undergo additional

imprisonment for one year.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 8-12-2012 at 02.00 p.m., Cr.A.No.532/2013

the appellant herein assaulted his father-in-law deceased Amar

Singh Yadav by hand & fist by which Amar Singh Yadav suffered

injuries on his stomach and died in hospital during the course of

treatment pursuant to which report was lodged by the wife of the

deceased namely, Smt. Parvati Bai on 11-12-2012 at Police Station

Kotwali, Korba and first information report Ex.P-1 was registered.

Thereafter, dead body was subjected to panchnama vide Ex.P-9

and on the recommendation of panchas, the dead body was

subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. R.K. Divya

(PW-8). According to the postmortem report (Ex.P-8), cause of

death was rupture of spleen and consequent collection of blood in

peritoneum. Thereafter, nazri naksha was prepared vide Exs.P-2 &

P-3.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of

the CrPC and after completion of usual investigation, the appellant

was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal court for

offence under Section 302 of the IPC and the case was committed

to the Court of Sessions from where the Additional Sessions Judge,

Korba, received the case on transfer for hearing and disposal in

accordance with law. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered

into defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as

many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents Exs.P-1 to P-15.

Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was

recorded in which he denied the guilt. However, he examined none

in his defence and no document was exhibited on his behalf.

Cr.A.No.532/2013

5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence

available on record convicted the appellant for offence under

Section 302 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening

paragraph of this judgment against which this appeal has been

preferred.

6. Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, would submit that the deceased died on account of

rupture of spleen and consequent collection of blood in peritoneum

and therefore, at the most, offence under Section 323 of the IPC

would be made out and the appellant's conviction under Section

302 of the IPC is liable to be set aside. He would rely upon the

decision of this Court in the matter of Raffail v. State of M.P. (now

State of Chhattisgarh)1 to buttress his submission.

7. Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/

respondent, would support the impugned judgment and submit that

the deceased has sustained grievous injury on account of the

assault made by the appellant and died due to rupture of spleen.

The appellant must have had the knowledge that rupture of spleen

may likely to cause death and it cannot be held that the appellant

has wrongly been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the

IPC and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their

rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the

record with utmost circumspection.

9. Relationship between the appellant and the deceased is not in

1 2011(1) CG.L.R.W. 300 (DB) Cr.A.No.532/2013

dispute, as the appellant is son-in-law of the deceased to whom he

has caused injury by hand & fist by which the deceased suffered

injury on his stomach because of which spleen was ruptured and

blood was collected on the peritoneum and consequently, the died

died as per the statement of Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-8).

10. Wife of the deceased and mother-in-law of the appellant - Parvati

Yadav has been examined as PW-1. She has clearly stated that on

the date of incident, the appellant took out ₹ 3,000/- from the pocket

of her husband and when her husband asked him why he has

taken money from his pocket, then out of anger, the appellant

assaulted her husband by hand & fist by which her husband

suffered swelling on his stomach and stopped urination and blood

started oozing from his mouth and thereafter, he succumbed to

death in the hospital.

11. Modi in his Medical Jurisprudence under the hearing of "Spleen"

has given specific opinion that an enlarged spleen becomes

softened and brittle. Hence it is liable to rupture from a fall or from

violence of a very slight degree. Enlarged spleen may sometimes

rupture spontaneously from contraction of the abdominal muscles

during the act of sneezing, coughing, vomiting or straining.

12. In Illustration (b) of Clause Fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC, it has

been provided that if the offender knowing that the victim is

labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his

death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury and the

victim dies in consequence of the blow, the offender is guilty of

murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the Cr.A.No.532/2013

ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound

state of health. But if the offender not knowing that the victim is

labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in

the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health

and the victim dies, the offender is not guilty of murder.

13. In Medical Jurisprudence of Jhala & Raju, 15th Edn. page 288-289,

hurt causing rupture of spleen has been held to be an injury / hurt

endangering life within the meaning of Clause Eighthly of Section

320 of the IPC which defines grievous hurt and which is as under: -

"320. Grievous hurt.--The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous";

First to Seventhly.--xxx xxx xxx

Eighthly.--Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."

14. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid legal

position, it is quite vivid that in a sudden quarrel developed on a

dispute of taking out money from the pocket of the deceased, the

appellant assaulted the deceased by hand & fist by which he

suffered grievous injury i.e. rupture of spleen and deposit of blood

in peritoneum as a result of which he died in hospital. Since the

appellant has neither intention nor knowledge that causing injury by

hand & fist is likely to cause death, considering the injury caused by

the appellant by which spleen was ruptured, the case would be

covered under Clause Eighthly of Section 320 of the IPC, as the

said hurt has endangered the life of the deceased and he suffered

death. The appellant cannot be convicted for offence under Cr.A.No.532/2013

Section 302 of the IPC considering the manner in which the

appellant assaulted the deceased and he can safely be held guilty

of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the deceased, which

unfortunately resulted in his death. Accordingly, he is liable to be

convicted under Section 325 of the IPC.

15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While acquitting the

appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC, he is

convicted under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced to the

period already undergone him. The appellant was in jail from 11-

12-2012 to 17-7-2014, thereby he remained in jail for 1 year 8

months 6 days. The appellant is already on bail, he need not

surrender to his bail bonds and his bail bonds shall remain in

operation for a period of six months in view of the provisions

contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC.

              Sd/-                                               Sd/-
       (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                            (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
             Judge                                              Judge
Soma