WWW H211 311wm Ewan w?!m HIGH COURT CRIMINAL OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPEAL No.308 of 2005 hwyELLm'r ' X i (In Jail) ‘ I ‘ Rewa Ram Rathere, S,’ o Shri Ganga Ram Rathore, aged about 32 years, R} o — Mukta (Bhatapara), O.P. — Hardi Bazar, RS: ~ Kusmunda, DistL — Korba (CG) Varsus ; i‘ RESPONDENT ' State of Chhattisgarh Through P, S. Kuwnunda, DISL‘L. Kurba (CG) Present: Ms. Sangeeta , ML Sandip Yadav, (6‘11 Dhirendra Mishra J This criminal conviction and order passed in S.T.No. 55" Korba has convicted the IPC and sentenced him of Rs.3,000f— and in additional RI for two ‘2. Case of the pro Sukulram (since dece Mismra, counsel for the appdlant. Dy. GA for tha Stat€[rcspondmt. QRAL JUDGMENT Decamber 2007) appeal is djr€cte§1 against the judgment of of sentence dated 22nd March 2005 04 whereby learned Sessiens Judge, annellant under Section 304—1 of the to undergo RI for ten years, pay a nne default of payment of iine to undergo Vears. ecution in brief is that on 24.8.2004 ed) and his Wife Indirabai W_ mm (ma-W) WW fsqWm‘ assimm ‘ mwm their daughtm‘s nalnely Ahjlya and e was smue quarrsl between Roshni lant and 'Ahjlya—daughter of the )f the appellant abused Ahilya (PW~ 4). In the evening when Su ulram and his Wife Indirabaj (PW-3) accused, the accused and his wife started abusing them an the accused assaulted deceased $ukulram with knife on th left portion of his chest, as a result of which he died. work in their 61d whersas Rekha werc at home. Thar - daughter of the appe] deceased, whereupon Wife complained about this to ort of the incident was lodged by Bandhanram (PW-6), bro er of the deceased in Police Outpost Hardi Bazar: Korba at about 20.10 hours vide EX.P!5. given by Bandhanram (PW-6) at a out 20.15 hours on the same day. Inquest over the persong f the deceased was prepared vide EX‘PI 7. The dead body wa sent for autopsy to Primary Health Center, Hardi Bazar Wha Dr. A.N. Kanwar (PW- 1) conducted postmortem and gave his report of EXP! 1. The weapon of odence knife seized d ring imiestigation Was examination and report f the doctor is EX.Pj2. Rewarain was also sent fo medical examination and his injury report is EX.P}3. Spot m p of EX.P]4 was prepared by Halka Patwari. stigation charge sheet was iiled Court of Judicial Magistrate First ‘Thereafter, merg intim tion (my; 15) sent for Accused 3. _ After completing against the accused in t mmw,m FS/59— 8/2007 #30,000, e R e ' h] Wm '81 200 Wm (W) mmfaaia? ’ WWW mam ‘ww i ‘ 3 %ai§%mm Class. Katghora who in turn committed the cage to the Court of Sessions Judge. Korba for ti'ial. 4. During trial the mos caution examined 12 Witnesses in all. Thereafter, statement of the accused was. recorded in which he denied the circumstance$ aypearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false imylication. He has stated ‘hat on the date of incident he was at his home due to fever. On account of quarrel between the children, deceased Sukulrain entered in his home, dragged him out and at that time Wife olf the deceased caught him and the deceased assaulted him with club. Thereafter, deceased Sukulram tried to attack hm with the knife and While he (the accused) was trying to defend himself, the knife struck the deceased. However, learn :d trial Court after hearing counsel for the resnective parties convicted and sentenced the accused] appellant as meitioned in paragraph ~1 of this judgment. 5. Learned counsel f'n‘ the appellant submits that conviction of the appellant is based on the statements of Bandhanram ~ brother of the deceased. lndirabai — Wife of the deceased. Rekha (‘33 Ahjlva — daughters of the deceased. They are all highly interested witnesses. The statement of independent Witness was nPt recorded and they have not even been produced during trial From perusal of the statement of 'i [mi W arm: 53W, Imam ’ FS/59— 8/2007 —30,oou, WW, m, W mm (W) WWW ammw WWW WWW§wW 'QFWW would be evident that in fact they had alleged evewitnesses it not seen the incident atxl they are not the Witnesses of truth. Even complainant Ban Wm 111 200 amam resides at a distance and he had not seen the incid t himself. However, learned trial Court relying upon the stat discreuancy, has held contended that the in appellant as the deceasltd Sukulram had gone to his house and Ind under the sudden provocation the y one knife blow on the left portion of Sukulram. The appellant was also the doctor. who has noticed simple It is further argued that looking to the mees sentence of 10 years’ RI and dine (cessive and same should be suitably ents of these Witnesses, which is full of the appellant guilty. It is further pident occurred in the house of the beaten him with club i appellant had given on] the chest of deceased medicallv examined by mjul‘ies on his yerson. totality of the circumst of Rs.3.000,’— is too e: reduced. 6. On the other 1’ supported imyugned jut 7. Dr. AN. Kanwar person of the deceased he found one stab wou side of the chest 3 crm l intercostal space. On iJ wound present in the l and. learned counsel for the State igment of the trial Court. {PWe 11 has conducted postmortem over and gave his report of EX.Pf 1, in which ad ofsize 8 cmx 3 cm): 9 cm over left below and lateral to nipple in the 5th iternal examination, he found puncture eft lung. He has opined thatEalLse of A mm (WW) Wmm ammm mmm 3. WWIWW %aif?rqan%w death was shock due t vital organ. Thus, in homicidal death of Suk 8, Conviction of the PW- 6 Bandhanram — Bai— Wife of the docc claughtem of tho (ieceas 9. PERI—3 Indirabai is her husband Sukuh‘aJ thore Was a quaxrel be‘ beaten and abused bv graze his bu§a103. As appellant and his wife dragged her towards t11 the Wife of deceased Sukulram. In her deposition she has stayed that on return from the lield she and n were informed bv the children that Ween Roshni and Ahilya and they were them. However. her husband went to soon as she came out of her house, the caught her and started abusing and Leir home. At that juncture, “ole of the appellant also beat liter children and herself. Qfhen her husband itltexvenod? m assaulted her husband. However, he was able to ward 0d the blow. At that fime Rewaram assaulted her husband With knife, which struck on his chest, as a result of which he fell down The knife m‘obably struck his stomach or the left side of his chest. In paragraph 7 she has admitted quarrel between her and Wife of the of which she fell on Wd and died on the snot. that there was somo appellant, as a result WW,W,W WW H1 200 D haemorrhage as a result of injuries to wiew of the report of Dr. AN. Kanwar ulrani is established. appellant is based on the statements of brother of the deceased. PW~3 Indira ased. PW—4 Ahjlya and PW—5 Rekha, ed. fe of the apyellant picked up a club and WW, m, WET @ b€came unconscious. nf incidsnt Ramgopal, Ahjlya and anc Jamulmisha were grese’nt and complainant Bandhanram resides She has further stated that at the Time Gayatri, both hcr daughters Rskha 85 at a distance. When she regained consciousness her husband was already dead. Some omissions have also bqen pointed out in her diary statement of ExD; 1. 10. PW~4 Ahilya is dight year old daughter of the deceased. there was a quarrel between her and the appellant and on this wife of the n the morning with hithv language. ln appellant and his Wife beat them and ther. Rewa assaulted his father with knife. Though she h s claimed to have seen the incident, however, in pal‘agraph — 6 of her statement she has stated that when she came out o the house, she found her father lying and she was infer ed by her grand—father (Babad that Rewaram has assaulte her father with knife. She has stated that Roshm' —- daughter of annellant abused her 1 the evening also the quaneled with her m ll. PW—S Rekha h also g‘ven the same background in which the incident 0 curred and has stated that when her father returned with b assaulting him with 1d her father with knife, a 3 she has stated that s Ealos, the appellant and his Wife stated nife and club. The appellant assaulted s a result ofwhich he died. In paragraph he was inside the house when hg fathg m m '81 200 mm (W) .maatetiat ammm megawatt t, Wma‘fse‘rm estimates W 3am, Wig, was assaulted. However, in the same breath she has stated that $116 was outside the house. She has denied the suggestion that she is deposing as tutored by her mother and grand- father. She has fur’tha stated that the accused assaulted her father with km'fe from 1ts hlade side. 12. P‘W-6 Bandham place of incident on time Rewaram took o Sukulram on the left 5 fell on the ground and this wimess. he has appellant assaulting h 13. PW-7 Pawan Ku incident has turned ht 14. if we closelv e2 Indirahai. Rekha and there was some quart and deceased in the t also there was some anoellant and wife ot quarrel between the t dec eased intervened tl am has also stated that he reached the being called by his son Ramgopal that lndirabai and Rewaram axe hghting with each other. At that ut knife from his pocket and assaulted tide of his chest, as a result of which he died. 1n the lengthv cross-examination of stuck to his claim that he saw the is brother with knife. mar. who was also an evewitness of the stile. amine the statements of Bandhanram, Ahilva. it leaves no room to doubt that e1 between the children of the appellant morning of the incident. ln the evening auarrel and scume between Wife of the ' the deceased in relation to the same :hildren and at that juncture when the 1e aypellant gave a knife blow/eithe left m m W‘L 200 mm (W) mwfaaw’ ammm WWW 3' mmzifz‘étm §7Wm @ WW,W,W mm a1 200 Wm (W) WWW WWMIR§W€R % éwfmm WWW 3211mm side of his chest, resulting in his instantaneous death. From the injury re§ort of the appellant it is also clear that he aiso sustained some simple injuries in the same incident. However, the manner in which t} e appellant assaulted the deceased 011 the left side of his chest clearly reveals that the appellant had given the lmife blow wth the knowledge that it could cause death of Sukulram thJugh there was no premeditau'on or planning for the same ald the incident oc curred on the spur of moment due to sudden provocation. However, there was no grave apprehension in the mind of the appellant to his life so that he could claim that the assault was made bv him in his right of private defence. 15. ”Forrthe foregoing reasons. this Court is of the considered oninion that the trial Court on the basis of material available on record has correctly held that the oh‘ence committed bv the appellant falls Within Ebiception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC and accordinglv. convicted him under Section 304d of the IPC. 16. Now coming to t'1e question of sentence imposed upon the appellant. Talnng into consideration the circumstances in which this unfortunate incident occurred and also considering the fact that the appellant gave a single lmjfe blow to the deceased and did not repeat the blow, ends ofjustice would be served if the sentence is modihed and reduced to six vears’ rigorous imprisonm ent. w 1 gj J W mu......................u.............‘......n..n?.n.m 200 mm (W) mammfaai? ‘ mwm mm fw‘nmgr Wm?“ e3 awmam 17, In the result, the apyeal is partly a3lbwed. While maintaining conviction of Tide appellant undcr Séction 304-1 of I , the IPC, the sentence of w years’ RI and mm of Rs.3:000j— imyosed upon the appellant by the trial Court is hereby mo&ed and in place the1 eof, he is sentenced Lfo 6 years’ R1 and pay a tine of Rs.1,00C{'—: in default of payment of $1e to A underg0 additional RI for tlree monthV/J/ ' ' ’7 sdl— ' mam w mm, mama FS/s9~ 8/2007 H3090“.