sn^r.^i k-u* ''CTSIR^ gn]R? e ^IBE^! •ye^^fpfT^f, w-^wie, Ri^i'y^ wmr g,!^--"-^-.--'^-"-"--^.^...-.-........^ 200 ^. ant?r 'qsiw ('pf^a^T) APPELLANT: (In Jafl) RESPONDENT: {Crimmal appeal under S^ction 374 (2) ofCriinlnal ProcedmB Code$ Division Bench: Hoa'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo a|id Hoa'ble Mr. SunU Kumar $inha, JJ. 19-12-2007 Mrs. Hamida Siddiqu Mr. D.K. Gwalre, Ai respondent. , Oraljudgnient dictatf L.C. Bhadoo. J: - The accused/appeBant iinpugned judginent of him for coxamission of offej the I.P.C., has preferred of the judgment dated 13-' Judge, Fast Track Courtj whereby leamed Additiona|l ':^~^ ^^{7 g?ir CM'4l<n<ii'l 'RFT^ff "^ ft'^t Tf^T^K ^ aiRpr Sfi^i Ram lal, S/o Dhanoo Ram, aged about 26 years, Ctiltivator and rcsidcnt of ViU^e Dabripara, P.S. Surajpiur, Distt. Sai^uja (C.G.) - Versus - Stete ofChhattisgarh, Through Police Surajpur. !, counsel for fhe appcUant. Iditional Public T'Fosecutor for the State/ d on Dais. AanteJ i^antely, Ramlal being aggrieved by the con|vfction and order of senteace unposed upon ice punishable uadcr Sections 302 & 323 of f4is appcal questioning legalily & correctness 1^-2002 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Smajpur in Sessions Trial No. 232/2001, Sessions Judgp after holding the wxvisedf fS/59—8/2007 —30,000. ^f-!s3s s s ..wy '•^faRg^1- Tv^ •^TaT"RT, »Ti"i'y'i<a, Rioi'My (h^^^l *11^dl sbtllcb""""'"""""""""""""""""^"""--'^ 200 "a-. avf^f TRre ('pf^a^T) SII^I.TT [(;•)!<)> wiTan^r gnira- appeUaat for cominission I.P.C. senteaced him to un< Rs.1,000/-, in default of three nionths & to undergo in default of payinent of respectively. }f ofence under Sections 302 & 323 of the ^ergo imprisoiunent for Ufe and pay a fine of [^aymcnt of fine to further undergo R.I. for |R.I. for one year and pay a finc of Rs.500/-, ^ne to further undergo R.I. for one inoath, Case of the prosecution, regarding land between fhej both fhe parties are heirs) Vanshroop. On 10-3-200| (siuce deceased) to his hou) Sotaan askcd Holsai as to with Holsai. In fhe meanl aad rushed towards Hols^d Kamal Prasad & Man and snatched axe from rushed towards Holsai snatched. Thereafter, the consequences. Therefore, vill^e Up-Sarpanch Rajd] which Rajdhani told them day beitig tfae festival of were retunung to their reached near the fieM of with Mohit @ Mohelal, Pradad cantvni! riou hoilse ct)l'i4T<vt4l'l i=TR^Tf Tf fs^ <f^|^!< ^TSfRPT 311^1 |in brief, is fhat there was sonie dispute [victim party and tfae accused party because of two real brofhers namefy, Dhannoo & 'll one of fhe accused Sohan catled Holsai i^e, when Holsai weat to the housc of Sohan, |who has eaUed him and sterted quarreling time, accustel Dhannoo came canyiag axe s^i to attack him. Hcaring fhe conunotion, 1, brothers of Holsai, reached on the spot Qhannoo. When Ramlal, son of Dhannoo, n|yiag Lathi to attack him, that Lathl was als Nafalcu iccused persons threatencd Holsai with dire Holsai & Maa Prasad went to fhe house of laai to mfonn hiin about the iaeident on hat he will convene Paachayat next day, fbat Thereafter, when Holsai & Man Prasad se, they were on fhe way to their house aad anjit Sahu, accused/appeUant Ramlal along tku, Jscgat Narayan, Kanti, Man^l & Sohaa I^anjit ."•TT^ ^iTFT V59—8/2007 —30.000. •-"—?;" att ^CT^ 3^ET ^||<<|0<), aii{|t)'|<s, fcf^iyy ._. ...&.. .A...^l. •V^ 200'^ 3<i^?f'ii'ra? (lyt'l*'^?) 3n^[?iI'f^RT j wiisn^iwqN? wnw ^if??i sii^r 3. 4. caaae anncd with Lafhis, fhey Holsai & Man Prasad wifh Lafhit Kamal Prasad, brother ofthe attacked by the accuscd persoi^s on head. Man Prasad also hands & legs. Kamal Rrasad cheeks. The incideat was Prasad and they iaterveaed. imderEx.P-l. T*ble blocted the way aad started attacking Hearing the conunotion, coaplamant 1, came on the scenc. He was also wifh Lafhi. Holsai sustained injuries iujuries on hcad, mouth, cheek injuries on head, hands, legs & by Subhash Guruji, Narayan Ram niatter was reported by Kamal Prasad deteased sudtained Sitstained witaejssed The Investigatmg Officcr took ujj Prasad & Kainal Prasad to succumbed to the Injuries intimation Ex. P-19 was given. S.L. Jaiswal (PW-5) preparcd inj Prasad, Ex. P-7 in respect of Man Prasad. When Holsal dl body was conducted by Dr. He opiaed that cause ofdeath of death was homicidal. He Aftcr gwiag notice Ex. P-17 faj couducted on fhe body ofHolsaiJ of Holbai Sa^jay w&s Ader coinpletion of invest^atioEJ, 'Additional Chief Judicuil M^is^rate fhe case to the Sessions Judg^, cbFlf^^ fV^t ^f^S <f<n-^.l< i; siRn 3ii^[ h^spital sustained the iuvesti^tion. Hc sent Holsai, Man for treatment, however, Holsai by faim, ia the hospital. Merg |Afber examination of their injiiries, Dr. |uiy reports Ex.P-6 in respect ofKamal ^ai (since deceased) & Ex. P-8 in respect |ed ia fhe hospital, post-mortem on his Tripathi (PW-6), on the saine day. shock due to head iffljuiy and natun t>repared post-inortem report Ex. P-16. fhe Panchas, inquest Bx.P-18 was by the Investigating Officer. I, chaa^e shcet was ffled in fhe Coiirt of :, Siu-ajpiir, who in turu committed ^, Ainbikapiu-, from where leamed 2nd Jtoa 3^ET '^pn^CT, ®Tli+fJI<S,Ricil^y W^T g^-...^.A.^2^.^ •H^ 200"^ traq; (ijgf^g^a) •CT^I.^I R-1 CTTan^f gniR? 6 81 Additional Sessions Judge, F case on tcansfer for trial. The prosecution in order to persons exaxniaed 14 witness were recoixied iinder Secttoa the material appearmg agaiasl dispute fhey have beein falscl} has been reported ia an exaggf ^ist Track Coiut, Surajpur, reccived fhe estabUsh chaiges against the accused ^s. Statements of the accused persoas p 13 of tbe Cr.P.C. m whieh fhey deaiied fhem aad stated that on account ofland implicated ia fhe crinie aad thc xaatter trated inanner. Leamed Additional Sessions parties, convicted and senteD|c He also comdcted accused J^jat tbe I.P.C. However, he acquit|ted leveUed agaiast them. We have heard Mrs. Hamida S| and Mr. D.K. Gwalre, leamed the State/respondent. Mrs. Hamida Siddique has nc( Moreover, Man Prasad (PW-2] Ramlal attacked deceased Ho| on the scene of occurrence Kamal Prasad (PW-1), Subbas^ Dr. Saajay Tripathi (PW-6) ha| post-inorteni on fhe body •'n-^v 'AaR ^ •^i^^h"HR^ tf 'f^st <.i^r<-^H ^afRpTsn^r udge after hearing coiinsel for respectivc ;ed the accused/appcllant as aforesaid. Narayan & Mohit under Section 323 of ofher accused persons of thc chaxys iddique, teamed counsel for the appeUant Additional PubUc Prosecutor oa behalf of disputed thc hoxnicidal death of Holsai. has stated ia his evideace that accused Isai wifh Latbi. Presence of fhe accused las been estabHshed by the evidencc of \h Yadav (PW-4) & Nsaayaa Ram (PW-10). stated in lus cvidence tfaat he conducted of Ifolsai, apart fiom ofher iajuries tlicre was -FS/59—8/2007 —30.000. 3wT ^?PTTS5q', a'Tfiy'ig, Rfcrtltiy G,.A^^,1 •Rmw (h*ii*-------------|------^ 200 ^, ant?r TRW (^pfg???) sn^T.^T K;-fi* WITSIK^ 'sKW 9 Iracture of both parietal bonesj ruptured and there was Cause of death was shock as| hoaiicidal in aature. His repi above ocular & inedical Holsai was hoinicidal ia naturd & occipital bonetf, brain niembraae was haenlotonia beneatb the meinbraae of biain. a result of head injury and death was )(|)rt is Ex.P-16. Therefore, in view of the evide|nce, it is estabUshed that the dcath of eviddnce As far as coinplicity of fhe| concemed, coaviction of fhe Prasad (PW-2), Subbash Yads^ Prasad (FW-2), who is an injur^d stated ia his evidence at fbe ttme Holsai (since deccased) wcre Sarpanch Rajdhani, when th^y Ranjit Sahu, the accused examination by counsel for fh^ stated that accused/appeUanlj 2-3 times. Dr. S.L. Jaiswall injuries found on tbe body o|f Ptasad & Man Prasad coiild b|e were sent for exanunation andl Ip. Subhash Yadav (PW-4) has st^ted ran after Man Piasad & HoU! sustamed injuries. Even Mohey attackcd Holsai, whertas tftl^Ici<fll 'RTR^f Tf 'fe^ <^l^l< i? sffm aii^i accused in the criaie in question is ^ccused rests on the testimony of Man (PW-4) & Naiayan Ram (PW-10). Man witness & brother ofthe deceased, has of incident he along wltli his b»other t?etttnung from fhe house of ViBage Up- reached aear thc agricultural fann of Ipersons attacked fbem. On cross- ^ accused, in para 7, he has catcgoricalty Ramlal attacked his bttrther with Lathi, (PW-5) has stated ia his evMence ttiat fhe injured persons i.e. Holsai, Kamal caused by fhc Lafhis ia question which |his report is Ex.P-11. in ttis cvidence that Rainlal & Mohey al and gave beatiag. Man Prasad also this witaess had not stated that Maa Prasad (PW-2), injured witness, th|oi^h --H-^T ^r^r ^ -FS/59—8/2007 —30,000. 1^—. "^sa^ "'!t: :^w:A^^t®^: ':^;S!'^< ^-'-'- 3wT •^fpfTvf!!, wifw'w, ^iflwy, ^..&..^. Ml^rtl **<!*' •^ 200^ an^rxRiq; (4fit-i«i<iw) ailig.'^F •f^rig; WITSII^T s<it|i<<) w ll ^giwHfeisn^i has stated fhat Raxnlal attackejd stated fhat Mohey was eiaply therefore, testiinony of Man testiraony of Subhash Yadav and Mohey was cniply haadejl, Holsai were iuflicted by Ratal^l occurrence is estabBshed by has stated that Holsai was Ramlal & Mohey were staudi4i was tying and his body was speak, whereas Man Prasad w^! Holsai and Subhash Yadav (PW-4) has |handed and' Ramlal was carryiag Lafhi, |Prasad (PW-2) is corroborated by the -4) fhat since Ramlal was holding Lathi le(l, as a natural eonsequence injuries of Pcesence of Ramlal oa fhe scene of evidence of Naiayan Ram (PW-10) who lyfng on fhe ground in scrious coxidition, tg on the bank of fhe field, Man PrsaaA dtenched ni blood, Holsai was not able to ^s speaking. (F|W- iatnlbl, ftie lyfns In fhe circumstaiices, findia! attacked deceased Holsai wil iajured eyewitness Man Prass Subhash Yadav (PW-4) & suffer fioin auy fflegalily or ia Ramlal ia attacking Holsal is record and to tfaatextent, Nare^an findib appe4aat 1$. Leamed counsel for fhe specific evidence fhat who no clear and cogeat evidence eight accused persons were uiflicted fatal injuiy. Moreov^r heirs of two rcal brothers qil<il<1<Il-1 'tFRff if fS<A <Fi]t$lt ^aiRlHsn^r of fhe trial Cburt (hat accuscd Ramlal ^i Lafhi' is based on the testanony of d (PW-2) aad independcnt eyewitaesses Ram (PW-10). This fladingdoes not lity. Therefore, coinpMcily of accused intlrm stablished by legal evidence availablc on ig of fhe trial Court is corpecfc aiyied fhat in ttus case fhere is no fatal head injuty to Holsal, fhere is |in that respect. In fhis case, origiaally pijosecuted. It is not established that who >v^r, fhe dcceascd & accused persons are and ttiere was no preineditatioa or wSv aN3T ^"v tS/59—8/2007 —30,000. n-jxi— )g-HC—J8 •:^S-;^i-.? 'S^F f i"WS"xi 3'ScT ^l^lcl-il, sSiTfly'16, {slpiiuy MIMdl *MI°h •g^ 200 an^ •qg^ (ij^fy^T) sn^t ?n fii-fi'* cfSfT 3TT^T sh<4lcn ^TOR ^lfOT 311^1 preparatlon for coiimuttmg th| agaiast the accused does not I.P.C. Leanied coiinsel place^ Court in the matter of Pradesh (AIR 1993 8C 400). Saritoan mitrder of Holsai. Therefbre, offence |travel beyond Section 304 Part-II of the reliance on the judgtneat of the Apcx and others v. State of Madhya l^. On fhc other hand, leamed Ad|ditioaal PubUc PTOsecutor supported fhe judgment offhe trial Court. ai^ujnent tUc In order to appreciate fhe have perused fhe inaterial that victim party and accuscd] It is also adinitted position fhajt fhe parties on accouat ofsoine] March, 2001, accused Sohan) house, when Holsai went to who has caUed him. Dhannoo, when he rushed towards Holsal the meaa time, accused waa also snatehed by the fhey are not going to leave the house of ViUagc Up-i about fh.e uicident on whlch he is going to conveae day beiag the festival of HoU. and by fhe tune fhey reached avaElable •*wt<'i<sil-( iroff if.fe^ <Rit<i< ^3iiOT3iA?i advanced by respectiye counsel, we on record. It is adiaitted position Iparty are heirs of the troo real brofhers. a|t there was long animosity betwcen both ]laad dispute. On the fateful day i.e. 10th caUed Holsai & Rani Narayan to his house of Sohan, Sohaa objected as to 1 father of accused Solmn, came with axe, to attack Tnm, the axe was siiatehed, in also camc with Latbi, even fhat Lathi party, but fhey fhreatened that dfi, aa such, Man Prasad & Holsai went to Rajdhaiu in order to inform hnn Up-Sarpanch told them that toniorrow in order to setUe the matter, as fhat V?hen they were rctumixig to their housc i(ear the field of Ranjit Sahu, the accused RainlU coniblainant thedi Sarp^inch thle PsinckgSyat 3rcr ^i<<io<i, KTfl+f'Ko, fsirti'yy WHW shNleb ^...a:i^4 WI. 200 sn^v 'vw ( 4.<tf'i»i<isT) sn^f ?>t R-ii'* ^TSITT 3TI^T ?ti^i<ft ..'>-•• ^aro ^ifOT sii^i attacMed parly anned with Lafhis accused Ramlal attacked Holsi left parietal bones as weU as unconscfous on the spot and the hospital where he died eyewltaess, who vras para 7 oftus evidence that ac 2-3 tiraes. accoiaps|nyui Maa Prasai & Holsai, to that process ju with Lafhi on his hcad and hls right & ^ccipital bone were fractured, he becanie |feU down. He was iauaediately taken to |in the evcning. Man Prasad, iajured |nymg Holsai, has categoricalty stated ia ;used Ratalal attacked Holsai wifh Lathi lj5. Therefore, it is clear that fata} death of Holsai were infticted above facts, it is ctear fhat in to attack deceased Holsai and| deceased along with his brofl^cr will^e Up-Sarpauch, when thcjy again attacked fhe deceased appellaat infUcted fatal injiujy caused fi-acture of bofh fhe responsiblc for fhe death of |Iol RamJal attacked the deceased | place of body chosen by RaDa^aI blows of Lafhi with such a fonti were Iractured, In the euciunil Tarye to cause fhe deafh of Holjsai ^t^[f1141l im^ff Tf,fS^ <P>1^R ^aTfinail^r injuries which were Tesponsible for fhe |>y fhc accused/appeUaat In the Ught of |Uie first instance, fhe accused attemptied also ttuieatened the deceascd party, the Man Prasad wcnt to complaia to the were retuming baek, the accused parly paity and in that process, the accused/ ^ on the head of the deceased which parietal & occipital bones whlch were polsai. Whole stoiy niakes it clear that |with intention to cause his dcafh, as the was vital oi^aa head and he inflicted fhat both the parietal & occipital bones ^tances, intention ofthe accused was writ ,,-'.,dai, ;' ll3»^ <?i- Twf -i<i<ii(rt<<, axfl^'is, fsioiyy W^v\[ *NI* •••-•—--•••-•-•••••••••••"•^----••••^ 200 sn^yr 'q3?7 (T?f5??ff) sn^ ?ii Ri-ii'ti '?srT 'STE^T a)*4 ^s Soma ta u&3''.A. TOiiwafei sn^T ^I^FCI^I'T 'Hm^ff '^,'f^st' •cFai;<^i< ^; sifim sii^i 1|6. The judgment cited by l^amed coiinsel for the appeBant is distinguishable on facts fo^ the icason fhat in that case, the prosecution witaesses were ncjt able to pin point as to who caused fetal mjruy No.15 flacture of pa^-ictal bone, fhei'efore, the Apex Co'urt reached to fhe conclusion fha{; aB the accused persons are responsible, as such, ofFence vras converteift fipom Section 302 read wifh Section 149 offhe I.P.C. to Section 304 Pa^t-II icad wifh Section 149 ofthe I.P.C. 1)7. In the result, we do not find ^ny substance in this appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit, saine is |iable to be dtexnisscd and it as hereby disnussed, I ' - Sd/- sd/- ^ SunU Kumar Sinha L.C.BHADOO judge