1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATIIRE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cn‘minm No / Am %2001 d 3D s Fittu sic Bhuila Pahadi , Korwa ; agg year esidant 9f Viliage- Vinayakpgr ,L P;S.‘Shankargaxh istt. Surgujg (Chhattisgarh) 1 y i VERSUS The State (9f Chhattisgarh 1 F v 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ 1 CRIMINAL APPEL UNDER SECTION 374! 2} O? THE CODE O ‘ « '1 0 RA R. to A F CmMLNAL PROCEDURE APPELLANr é i § k RESPONDN ET R D ‘7 XI—HC; 22 The homicida} dea‘rh of Ehodgn is noHn&ispu?e‘ A? The aufse‘l' Mr Mehfa learned ceunge! for The appeHanT argued Thaf a3 ¥ ' per “fhe medical ewdence Bhodgo dxc d or‘ accounfo‘f .sep‘hcaemxa affer 20 dgys of i'he maden? fherefore affence ins‘r fhe amused does no? ‘rmvel bzycnd ‘ Sec‘hon 326 of ‘i’he lP C as he has been wrongly convlcfed under Secnon 302 of ‘(he I P C On fhe ofher hand Mr 8h 1a }earned Panel Lawyer appearmg for 1'he ‘ Sfa+e/responden‘r suppcrfea The Jud men? of The Trial Caurf As far as mvolvemenf of ‘i‘he caused/appeuanf m ’rhe commissmn of crim v is concerned mga (PW—2) has sf fed *rhai' on fhe fa‘feful day he along wn‘h Bhedgo cmd Marha wen? ‘I'o fake men! on fhe occasron sf Nawakhai when They were - refurnmg, accused Fxfu mef Them o fhe way and Mfacked Bhodgo Wifh axe as a. resul‘r of whgch Bhodgo feH clown a d The accused again assauh‘ed him wnfh fhe' axe. The evidence of fhis wirnes s been Corrobarafed by ‘x‘he eircumsfam‘ia: x,P.19)”made by ‘i‘he deceased befare Dr“ fha‘r on '12 1O 1998 he recorded fhe dying had caiegoriaally sfa‘i‘ed fhai fhe accused assaul‘ed him' wifh The axe Ther e m View of The dying deciaraTion ana The ’ ewdence 0" Baiga (PW-2) Invoive quesTIon i$ esTabiished Now, earning TO The QuesTian, on fa‘cTs whaT offence was made auT agains‘r ‘ —l) has sTaTed ThaT on 312-16-1998‘eshe i s evidence i.e. i‘he dying declara‘iian Jeseph Lakra (PW-5) "who has sfm decia‘rafion (EXP-19) in which Bho e r T of The accused/appellanf In The crime i The accused‘ Dr. 5mT. J Kujun " /[%%T‘E% v a e a E " d a m n n W XI-HC-22 mmmm Wk‘ 4— examéned The injdries of The accuse: and noficed asAmany as ”Five injuries} Looking‘ 1‘0 {M na'rure 0% %njury N051 f0 3 :he reserved her-opinion abou‘f fhose injuries fill fhe receip‘r 0f Xv cry reporf an advised for X—F’ay Injury No's‘ 4 & 5 were Simple m nafure if Is acmnfed pas Ion fha‘i‘ ro X my repor‘f Is placed on record by The prosecm‘wn Dr' KUJur has of sfafed ‘i‘haf mJurces on +he body of The deceasea were sufflcxenf m The or mary course of nafur‘e fa cause deafh Dr Arvmd Nemlwar (PW-6) who condu fed posT-mor‘i‘em on ‘l'he body af Ehodgo has sfafed fhaf ?he deceased died on accounf of sep‘hcaemm and syncope The accused d'ed offer 20 days of fhe ncldenf and If Is admlffed posmon Tha‘t fhe accused dred on accoun‘r of Sephca *herefor’e from The abo evidence fhe prosecufion has faded ‘ro v The deceased wxfh mfenhon To cause decrrh as ‘rhe deceased chad afmr 20 d s of fhe Incudenf fhaf Too on accounf of. sepfxcaerma .Ln The Circumstances are of ‘rhe cons‘dered opinioa Thar offence againsf fhe accused does no? fravel eyond Sec‘hon 304 Par? II of The 1 P C The- manner m which The accused assau! ed The deceased WITh axe knowledge of The accused can be aTTribuTed ThaT w Tie aTTackmg The deceased WITh axe The accused was havmg The knowledge T aT he may hkely To cause The deaTh of The deceased We are forTIfTedwn our oplm n Toy The JudgmenT of The Apex CourT m The maTTer of shanmagam aims Kulana welu v STaTe of Tamii Nodu reporTed m v AIR 2003 Supreme Cour? 209 m w nch The CourT heid ThaT “Accused m a peffy '( quarrel armed WIT/7 spearrs'fabbeo’ a’ ceased or; his abdomen and chesf -- Mcfxm laJ - e v ‘ es‘mbhsh i‘haf ’rhe accused assauH‘e d e XI—HCv2 ‘ 2 died a week affei' fbe‘inc/‘o’em‘, om‘ “infeh‘l’ion ‘i‘o cause \‘seVer‘e bodily accused and m‘fence againsf fhe ac was made cu? . In The mufter of @hnga Dase alias‘Godha V$ Sfafe oi: Haryana reporfed gases 534 1*he Apex Caur’r held fha‘? “5mg!e Deceased dymg 15‘ dayi: .I’afer due fa 4» Accused'cmmof be Scar/d whet/e mfended [my n-' He i5 /ieb/e fa be convfcfed Lnde‘r 5; ' in’ 1994 $ugp (1)5Qpreme Com}? ( had mjury caused by jran pipe Eepffcagmia and afher comp/icafiohs f0 cagsg deafh or fhm" parffcuiar [a 304 Pf. ffinsfeacl' af 5 302'. ' . L Accordingly, convicfwn and under Sec‘han 302 0f fhe IPC cc qccused/appellanf par‘fly succeeds Section 302 of The I P C are sef as: fhereof he :s cormc'red unaer Secfl undergo RI for exghf years“ , ‘VPcr‘Hes are enfified for cer‘m" Sd/- [ L.C.BHADOO i Judge 5oma ofs‘epftcaemxa" The Caurf fur‘rher held fhaf mJuries has fa be necessamiy tmpufed 1'0 cused under Sec‘l‘lon 304 Parf-I of ‘the I.P.C. ‘seni‘ence imposed oneflhe accused/oppeHanf nnof be susfamecx The appeal filed by lhev. Hts convlc‘hon and eenfence imposed under de and he ls acqulffed of The? charge ms+ead ' rm 304 Paw-II of ‘lhe I P C and sen‘l’enced 1'0 ied adiay of fhis arder. '/ /// /, Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ’ WeW