HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gugta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J Criminal A_p_peal No. 853 of 2003 Heeralal Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT For consideratio Sdl- - sunil Kumar Smha Judge HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA 5d!— CHIEF JUSTICE ” 3W Post for Judgment : {/lO5/2009 Sdl- _ Sun“ Kumar Slrma Judge V 4“ \ ‘ K, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 853 of 2003 APPELLANT Heeralal, S/o. Kartik Ram aged about 41 years, R/o. Village Jevra, P.S. Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT The State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) (Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Apearance: p Smt. Uha Chandrakar, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawr, for the State. (.o5.2oo9) Followin judgme of. the Crt was delivered by g nt ou Q (1) Appellant Heeralal stands covicted u/ss 302 & 201 IPC and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for d 7 years with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir (C.G.), in Sessions Trial Ng. 449/2002 on 29‘“ April, 2003. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased Kondibai was th real sister o the appellant. Se e f h was residing with the ppellant in village era. Since 9.10.2002, a Jv she was ot seen in the vlage. When the villagers, including La n il w h b Kumar (PW-3), nephew of te appellant, asked the appellant aout s ye JUDGMENT 1i Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. n / / 2 Criminal Appgal No. 853 of 2003 @ his aunt deceased Kondibai, the appeHant stated that she had gone to village Nandeli‘ On a search, when Kondibai was not found in village Nandeli, PW—S‘, Law Kumar, and other‘villagers namely Fhaguram (PW—1), Chatram (PW-8), Nand Jharokha (PW-10), Rajkumar Yadav (PW-13) and Mannuram (PW-15) again went to the appellant and seriously asked about the deceased, on which, the appellant made extra-judicial confession before them and admitted that on 9.10.2002 at about 10.00 p.m., on account of falling of the lamp (chimini) from the hands of the deceased in the house, a quarrel took place between them and in heat of anger, he gave one lat/7i blow on the head of the deceased, due to which, she fell down and died and thereafter, he buried the dead body in the courtyard of the house and made a platform at that place. The said information was given to the police on 12.10.2002 by Law Kumar (PW-3), on which, Roznamchasahna No. 396 was recorded and an offence u/ss 302 & 201 IPC was registered against the appellant. The Investigating Officer obtained permission from the Sub—Divisional Magistrate under Ex.—P/11 and the dead body of the deceased was exhumed from the place indicated by a the appellant, which was in the couityard of his house. A t Panchnama to this effect was prepared under Ex.-P/1. Inquest on the dead body was prepared under Ex.-P/2 and Dehatinalishi merg intimation (Ex.—P/12) and Dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/13) were recorded. The dead body of the deceased Was sent for post-mortem to Government Hospital, Pamgarh under Ex.—P/18, where the post- mortem examination was conducted by Doctor R.D. Gupta (PW- / Q r @ 17), who prepared his report Ex.-P/24. The Autopsy Surgeon noticed one Iacerated wound of 12 cm x 1/2 c x 11/2 cm on the scalp of the deceased with a fracture of underline bone. He opined hat the cause of death was on account of head injury and it was homicidai in nature. After taking appellant Heeralal into custody his memorandum statement (Ex.-P/4) u/s‘27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and a lathi was seized at his nstance under Ex.-P/5. Clos of the appellant and the deceasedwer also seized. The seized articles ere sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Scice Laboratory, Raipur under Ex.-P/21, from where, a report was recved Accorng to the F S repor blood stns were found on the Ioong/ and lath] seized from the possessron of the appellant (3) After completion of usual investigation, the charge—sheet was filed in the Court of concerned Magistrate, who in turn committed the matter to the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, from where it was received on transfer by the Second Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), Janjgir, who conducted the trial and 'convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned. i (4) The conviction of the appellant is based on the extra—judicial confession and the recovery of the dead body at his instance as also recovery of blood stained Iathi on the discovery made through the appellant. I ‘f (5) Smt. Usha Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. ¢ m Criminal Apgeal N0. 853 of 2003 m t i th e w en ei di L t ai 4 Criminal Appeal No. 853 of2003 z¢ Moreover, it comes in the evidence of Dr. R.D. Gupta (PW-17) and in the post—mortem report (Ex.-P/24) that the deceased died on account of head injury sustained by her and the death was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (6) So far as involvement of the appellant in ‘crime in question is concerned, we have gone through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution. lt comes in the evidence of Law Kumar (PW-3), Fhaguram (PW-1), Chatram (PW-8), Nand Jharokha (PW—1‘0), Rajkumar Vadav (PW-13) and Mannuram (PW-15) that the appellant made extra—judicial confession before them and admitted that on account of a petty matter i.e. falling of the lamp from hands of the deceased, a quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant gave a Iathi blow on the skull of the deceased, due to which, she fell down and died. The appellant also confessed that after her death, he buried the dead body in the courtyard of the house and has made a chowra on it. The above evidence of extra—judicial confession is corroborated by the contents of the Roznamchasahna recorded at the instance of Law Kumar 1x (PW-3). The other evidence is that the dead body was exhumed from the place indjpated by the appellant. Apart from the above, it comes in the evidence of prosecution witness that the appellant and the deceased both were the only inmates of the house at the relevant time and the dead body of the deceased was found in the courtyard of the house in buried condition and the appellant gave explanation for this in extra-judicial confession. As stated above, on the memorandum statement of the ‘ appellant, a Iathi was seized at his instance and blood stains were found 5 Criminal Appeal No. 853 of2003 on the Iathi. The blood stains were also found on the Ioongi of the appellant. Therefore, it was fully established that the appellant was the author of the crime who mstly assaulted the deceased with Iathi and when she died, he buried her dead body in the courtyard of the house. (7) Smt. Chandrakar argued that the circumstances in which the appellant gave single blow on the skull of the deceased would not constitute the offence u/s 302 IPC. (8) We have carefully considered the above argument advanced by Smt. Chandrakar. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.10.2002 at about 10.00 p.m., a chimini (small lamp used in village) fell down from the hands of the deceased and kerosene oil spread over the floor. The appellant scolded the deceased on account of her such negligence, on which, the deceased re-acted and she started quarreling with the appellant. On such act of the deceased, the appellant became angry and he gave a Iathi blow on the skull of the deceased and the deceased died after sometime. lt shows that on a petty matter, quarrel begun between brother and sister and the appellant become angry and in heat of anger, all of a sudden, without premeditation or preparation, the appellant gave a Iathi blow on the head of the deceased. This shows that the appellant ‘ was having no intention to cause the death of the deceased. However, the evidence on record would clearly show that he was having knowledge that such injury may cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, the offence committed by the appellant would fall within the exception of \ Section 300 IPC and since the knowledge can well be attributed in the \ 3 Ct‘a \ \\ acts of the appellant, he shall be liable for punishment u/s 304 Part-ll IPC. a \ \\ §§qx 6 ‘_ Criminal Apgeal No. 853 of 2003 @ (9) As far as conviction u/s 201 IPC is concerned, certainly, the appellant had buried the dead body in the courtyard of his house with an intention to screen the offence, therefore, his punishment u/s 201 was fully justified. (10) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 302 IPC are set aside. instead ‘1 thereof, he is convicted u/s 304 Part-ll IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 201 IPC are maintained. (11) As directed by the Sessions Court, his two sentences, referred to I above, shall run concurrently and the appellant shall be entitled to set-off the period already undergone by him; M Sdl- '7 :s—— i sty— b, SuniiKumar Sinha , ‘ ‘ CHIEF JUSTICE i i ,i Judge . s . , r j vatti