./--^''^. '-:'\ .,;'5.??-&a (i /ft' l.\. w^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \ DTVISION BENCH CORAM: H&N'BLB MR. T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE MR. R.L. JHANWAR. JJ. CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 630 OF 2005 , Bharat son of Sukhdeo Markam, ^. aged about 35 years, occupation: Agriculturist, resident of village Titna, PoUce Chowki Makidi, P.S. Kondagaon, dist: Bastar (C.G.) VBRSUS RESPONDBNT State of Chhattisgarh. APPEAI, U/S 37412} OF THE CODB OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Present:- Mr. Shailfesh Ahuja, Advocate for fhe appeUant. Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, P.L. for fhe State/respondent. ORAL-JUDGBMENT (Passedon 05/01/2011) The followmg iudgment of the Court was passed by 1. Challenge in this appeal is to fhe judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4/7/2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur tn Sessions Trial No. 56/2005 whereby and where under after holdtng fhe appellant guilty for fhe coiainission of offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder of his father Sukhdeo, convicted the appeUant under Section 302 of fhe Indian Penal Code and sentenced imprisonment for life. ..-••^':S»-:.'...:-!•. •"•""^.' ^•: w Convlction is unpugned on fhe ground that wifhout any iota of evidence suf&cient for conviction of fhe appellant, Court betow has convicted and sentenced ffae appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed an Ulegality. As per case of 'flie prosecution, on fateful night of 24/7/2004 at about 9:00 P.M. appeUant was present with Ms fafher Sukhdeo in his house where he took out tihe bummg fuel wood and caused fatal uijury upon the head of his father Sukhdeo and caused his death. PW2 Aasman went to fhe Police Station and lodged the First Information Report vide Ex. P-1. Numbery First Information Report was lodged vide Ex. P-17. Marg intimation was recorded vide Ex. P-2. Numbery Marg intunation was recorded vide Ex. P-18. Investigating officer left for scene of occurrence and after sum.montng the witnesses vide Ex. P-3. Inquest over the dead body of deceased Sukhdeo was prepared vide Ex. P-4. One blood stained Lungi was seized from ttie spot vide Ex. P-5. Buming Fi^el Wood was seized at the instance of appellant vide Ex. P-6. Cloths of appeUant was seized vide Ex. P-7. Spot map was prepared vide Ex. P-8. Dead body. of Sukhdeb was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Center, Makidi vide Ex. P-9. PW5 Dr. Yashwant Kumar Dhruv conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-19 and ^-~"~^ 1'" '•^. •'te.. ^'"'''^ 1 a.S—^B -.// ^sy found on^ depressed injui^' over left temporal parietal region up to the some extent of frontal region. Death as a result of brain hemorrhage and death was homicidal in natiire. " 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of'Che Code of Criminal Procedm'e, 1973 (in short fhe Code'). After completion of fhe tnvestigation charge sheet was fUed before fhe Judicial Mag.strate First Class, Kondagaon who in tum coinmitted the case to the Court of Sessions, Jagdalpur 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused prosecution exammed as many as 5 witnesses. Accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearms against hun, mnocency and false unplication is clalmed. 6. After affording an opportunity of hearing to fhe partles leamed Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementionsd. 7. Mr. Shailesh Ahuja, leamed counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.R.J. Jals\wal, P.L. for the State/respondent are heard. Judgment unpugned and record of Court below perused. ..*.^;^:il>£--:^ 'r R?—y'.;\^ ;i '^'P&—1 fl '^ --^^ ~'-^ ^! '^ ~\ y v l^...^^y 8. Leamed counsel for fhe appellant submits fhat in tfae light of evidence of PW1 Tularam & PW2 Aasman, he is not disputing tfae fact that appeUant has not caused fatal injury- over ttie head of deceased Sukhdeo resulting into his death. 9. Leamed counseltfor the appellant fiii-ther submits that as per case of the prosecution, appeUant and deceased Sukhdeo i.e. son and father had consi.uned liquor, they were quarreUing wifh each ofher and on sudden provocation without premeditation appeUant took out the burning fuel wood from (he spot and caused single blow to his father shows that appellant has not caused any tnjruy with intent to deafh of his fafher Sukhdeo therefore, Che act attributed by the appeUant does not travel beyond fhe scope of under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 10. On fhe other hand, leamed P.L. for the respondent/State opposed the appeal and submits that appellant has caused fatal injiiry resulting into death of his father Sukl^deo, fhis shows fhat he has committed , murder of his fafher Sukhdeo. 11. In order to appreciate tfae argument advanced on behalf of fhe parties we have examtned fhe evidence adduced on behatf of the urosecution. (^ 12. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of fatal injiiry foiind over the head of deceased Sukhdeo has not been subStantiaUy disputed on behalf of fhe appellant on ttrc otlier hand, otherwise also established by tfae evidence of PW5 Dr. Yashwant Kumar Dhruv and autopsy repor^ Ex. P- 19 and death was homicidal in nature. 13. As regard ftie complicity of fhe appellant in crmie in question, as per evidence of PW1 Tularam & PW2 Aasman, appellant and his father Sukhdeo have consumed liquor, they were quarreling wifh each ofher thereafter, appeUant has caused single blow to his fafher Sukhdeo resiilting into his deafh. E^idence of both the witnesses inspires confidence, trustworfhy and are safe to rely for the conviction of appeUant. 14. As regard the motive for coincaission of offence is concemed, motive is only aid in criminality and loses its importance. In case of du-ect evldence, even otherwise motive can be inferred on the basis of nature of injury, part of^fhe body where injury was caused, weapon used and ofher like circumstances. 15. In fhe present case, as.per case of fhe prosecution speciaUy the evidence of PW1 Tularam eyewitness son of present appeUant, appeUant and his fafher Sukhdeo have consunied liquor, fhey were taking meal. Dmin^ 6 16, course of, taking meal, some altercation took place befaveen appellant and deceased Sukhdeo then appellant took out burrung fuel wood and caused single blow upon 'the head of deceased Sukhdeo, this shosvs that fhere was no previous motive for causing deafh of his father Si^Khdeo even otherwise there was no occasion for causing such tnjury. Appellant was takuig meal. with his father Sukhdeo even he has consumed liquor with his father which is prevalent some tribal districts and when some altercation took place fhen appellant caused stngle blow. These circumstances are sufficient for drawing an inference that appeUant has not caused homicidal deafh of his father Sukhdeo wifh intent to cause his deafh but he has caused injiiiy on sudden provocation wifhout preiaeditation therefore, the act attributed bv fhe appellant does not toravel beyond the scope of under Section 304 Part-II of fhe Indian Penal Code. WIule convicting the appellaiit under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur has not considered tfais aspect & evidence and thereby committed an illegalily. For the foregoing reasons, criminal appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of fhe appellant under Section 302 of the tndian Penal Code is altered into under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant is m \ custody since 25/7/2004 and he has completed more than 6 years and 4 months. Considering fhese ctrcumstances and injury, sentence served by the appellant is sufficient sentence in under Section 304 Part-II of ttie Indian Penal Code. Consequently, appellant is sentenced to fhe imprisormient already undergone i.e. since 25/7/2004 till today. He be released forthwith, ifnot required in an\r other case. Sd/- T.P. Shas.-ma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhaawar