,\‘ Kagmxhm (:m‘ s.&.~mwé-w _ n QWA k' QM {v k “1,k 01$ PRwGNER Y ‘m ii " Apapgmw 01$ i ., ‘iiizsggzijigmk. (Fm: i 2 M ‘é-Qg wwtiéuiéwmw amwm‘s. Efme Elegai wactétiomr {Mes got am‘jear Within sevem’ ma may mag may; aE §E§ . if me gréwmr sums mawm dogs mai wash to be mpxe- me xwum may Mmeaé ai 94cc with the mse and will 11m e‘ V i my EeggQ ‘gmg‘i‘mwmer 'wugeiftwgiw a. immmag m my legai macmmmr Wm would apgeax . ‘ _ 'i § g f I, V 1 ‘ r 1&gm a? Awgmgizxéimg §ur my} saf Janigammt ~ WI Watie efwk'ishvm mwévi g v K. '«42a H Lmw $| Daém 6m Wh‘iciia ‘ LQmrmi twat Ar: .41‘ ~-4~::rg ° h a g, ‘3 .v ’ \ 13» WEE$IEE$E we. mimmer mums m m rapresmted (Br aoi; %4§@ a EWQ d mi‘m CHgEF JUG£C££MA MAGISTRATE » f @Cdi@ a:5 ‘ ’ . J", . _ i m ma 6mg Efm fw‘em @f transmission t0 thcj ff atgawsé’ $Wi¢ih a camp? a»? gamer pamew‘l mm Apmmm amm'.‘ ’ D‘xw V-V a? V mmim ~_ m C. I M‘s 0&912 $u§p§rmmn&em ‘ “é ’ u ’E'h Wggt- gawaagi x\ (1333‘ Jami g_ ‘ Irmmd m ascmmpany‘ ' l é/Q/ _._d i ‘a 9f mmpft m ”‘o L1 ' ‘ " ' > v v v I ‘ r ‘ 1 £31m of &@@eai cog ma Aweaéammomx ’ imm; : Wx; mied Mjgqagg ‘ ~~ . vv ‘ . I , . ‘ h ‘ 3. f ‘"«%!%'W‘ Egrwmtied ,3 m'&§m__, 1‘” , WNWFU WWI“ i 5,?— 7 h , !” _7 ’ w igq°rqrfW LW‘ aafawm _ .. " ’ ' ‘ a _ A _ Q. . awggigfigig? ‘ Rik ‘ n{“£0 ’ r Q$q§x ‘ {fig ag..a$ra; u W mvkppalfEFf T0£1$§£j ' vw :mixwf umxw HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Criminal Agneal No. 845/ 1992 G, Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Crimina! Angeal No.8“l 1992 Laxm inath Vs State of Chhattisgarh. CORAM: Hon’ble shri Fakhruddin, J & Hon’ble shri Vijay Kumar shivastava, J.’ Mrs. Kiran Jain, Counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.845/ 92. Mr. Y.,C. Sharma with Mr. Vivck Rathore and Mr. Hemant Gupta, Counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.846/92. Mr. U.N.S. Dco, Addiu'onal Public Prosecutor with Shn‘ Akhil Mishra, Counsel for the respondent] State. a JUDGMENT " Per Fakhruddin, J. (Delivered on 22 [09/2005) Heard. ‘wx This judgment shall dispose of the Criminal Appeal No. \ 845/ 1992 (Barsan —v- State of Chhath'sgarh) and Criminal Appeal ‘ ,x \\ No. 846/ 1992 (Laxmjnath -v— State of Chhattisgarh). \ 2) ‘ These two appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/04] 1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions ’I‘n'al No. 169/91 by which appellant Barsan has been held guilty for icommitting odence punishable under Secu'on 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and appellant 1Laxminath has also been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also under Section f 3§§ of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RJ. for one year. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. ‘ a 3) Briedy stated the prosecution story is that Ghanshyam Pxasad Verma was a teacher in village Sandi,” Laminath and Baisan both were working as agricultural labourers. On 02/ 10/ 1990, Laxminath and Barsan had gone to the shop of Ramprasad Verma where they purchased cloths worth Rs. 126.50. Ghanshyam Prasad Verma had accompanied them and stood as guarantor to pay in case they fail to pay within stipulated time. he prosecution story is that the said unt was no paid, and, T amo t hereore, the shopkeeper Rrasad Ver started demanding tf amp ma the unt hom Ghanshy Prasad. It i alleged that on amo am s‘ 11/ 11/ 1990 both the accused Laxminath and Barsan c to the ame ouse of Ghanshy Pxasad Verma where hot talks took place as a result of that Laxminath refed to remain in service of us hanshyiPasad y more; 0n 14 1 1990 at ab‘out 7.00 p.m. Gamr an / ] hanshya Prasad alng with his brother Narayan (PW/ 8) went to Gm o he house of accused persons d demanded the unt as the t an amo same was to be paid. There quarrel took place between hanshy Prasad Verma an both the accused. It is alleged that Gam d \ h am "\ ... the accused Laxminath assaulted Ghanshyam Prasad Verma with Tangia and Barsan with Lathi. Naxayan (PW/ 8) tnbd to escape but Q he was beaten by Laxminath as a result thereof he sustained injuries. This information was mceived by Badri Prasad (PW/ 10) ‘ who is the son of Narayan (PW/8) and he rushed to the spot and found that Laxmjnath standing outside the house holding Tangia. ‘As soon as Badri Pmsad rushed to the spot, he was abused, threatened and was asked to go uom them otherwise, he would be b‘eaten. Badri Pxasad went to Police Station along with Santosh and lodged the Fist Information Report in the‘Police Station on the same day at $.00 p.m. (Ex/P/26) and Police recorded the merg (EXP/27). Lochan (PW/ 11) Investigating " O$cer started investigation. On 14/11] 1990, he came to the spot and sent Narayan (PW/8) for medical maiment to Primary Health Gentle, Palan‘a where he was examined by Doctor Sita Ram Banjare (PW/ 1), Medical report is (Ex.P/ 1). On 15/ 11/ 1990 he prepared Panchnama (Ex/P/ 10) and site map (EXP/28). The dead body was sent to Government Hospital, Baloda Bazar for autopsy. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. H.N. Naik, (PWI4). His report is EXP/4. He found injuries. He opined that cause‘of death was due to excessive bleeding and shock. On 15/ 1 1/ 1990 as per Est] P. 13, the seized articles -Gamcha, Tobacco box, spectacles,- blood stained soil and plain soil of deceased Were sent for examination. In the intervening night of 15/ 16-11-1990 Barsan was arrested 5‘ nom' the house of his sister- Dullon'nbai (DW/2) in the village Gaiakusmi and Laminath was arrested in the village Gharghoda. During investigation tangia, lathi, sickle, clothes, shirt, baniyan, underwear and Gamcha have been seized according to seizure memo. Articles seized horn Laxminath and Barsan were sent to a ”rm“ . “a @ . FSL (PW/ 13). Ex.P/29 is the memorandum of articles and EX.P/ 31 is the report of FSL. Blood stains were found in the report of FSL and it was sent to Serologist, Calcutta. His report is :Ex.P/32. On his‘examination, human blood was found. After imves‘igau‘on, charge-sheet was med. :4. Learned hial Court u'amed charges under Section 302 alternatively Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P,C., for causing death of Ghanshyam Prasad Verma and causing injury to u Narayan under Section 323 the I.P.C. Charge sheet was read over and: explained to them who abjured their guilt and claimed themselves innocent. The defence of Barsan is that he was not present on the spot on the fateful day and he Was on the way to the house of his sister Dillorin Bai (DWI 2) in village Gamk‘usmi. In support of his defence, he examined DW/ 1 and DW/2. The defence of Laxminath is that it was Ghanshyam Prasad Verma who came in the aggressive mood, knocked the door and thereafter found the dead body and was guarding the dead body. 5) The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. P.W.1 Dr. Sita Ram Banjare who examined P.W.8 injured witness and > i‘ gave report. P.W.2 Laxminath Sahu, Patwari prepared map, P.W.3 Abhjnath, Head Constable, P.W.4 Dr. H.N. Naik, who conducted the autopsy and opined that the injuries were caused by tangia. P.W.5 Korbahar who conducted the inquest, P.W. 6 Ramkumar, P.W.7 Ramprasad Verma, cloth merchant horn whom cloths were purchased PW8 Narayan ’ injured eye-witness P.W9 Bharat \ Ram seizure Witness, P W 10 Badn Prasad s/o Narayan, PW 8 who had reached the spot 1mmed1ately and PW 11 Lochan, \ Investigating OEcer. ' \ \ \ \ i 6) Learned trial Judge by judgment impugned recorded the &1ding of guilt and convicted and sentenced as stated above, hence this appeal. d 7) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the i . . V qonwchon and sentence ale not sustamable Whereas learned counsel appearing for the State supported the judgnent and nndings mcoxded by the Court below. ; 8)w‘ Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently Y (ax i contended that the evidence of Naxayan P.W. 8 is not xeljable and the learned trm'l Court has wmngly Ielied on the same. It is appmpriate to refer his evidence in detail. Narayan PW—8 is injmed witness. In para 2 he has stated that on 14/01/ 1990 he had gone to Ghanshyam Prasad’s house along with his brother-in-Iaw Kejuram. Both of them entered into the house and thereafter about 15 minutes accused Laminath and his father barsan came there to beat his brother Ghanshya Prasad. Accused Laxminath and Barsan entered into the house of Ghanshyam. Prasad Verma, caught hold of him and threw him on the ground. He pacihed. He further stated that Ghanshyam Prasad asked “Laminath and i: Barsan to return the amount. He stated that the quarrel took place because of non-payment of amount regarding clothes which was purchased by accused Laxminath and his brother stood as guarantor and the shopkeeper was demanding that money. In paragraph 5 of the statement, the witness P.W. 8 stated that on the date of incident at about 7.00 P.M., his brother told him that Laxminath and Barsan had promised him to return the amount and asked him to accOmpany him to get the amount. Then he and \his brother Ghanshyam went near the doors of the house of V \ \ ' Laxminam and Barsan, accused Laminath and Barsan were in the house. His brother called Laxminath and Barsan. They came out and stood near the doors. His brother Ghanshyamgasked him to give the amount as the shopkeeper was demanding the amount. ; The accused persons saying that they don’t have money, thlew his ‘brother on the ground and started committing Marpeet. Accused ‘ Laxmjnath had a Lathi and accused Baxsan had a Tangia. P.W. 8 Narayan further stated’ that he shouted ‘Bachao Bachao. On this, a‘ccused Laxminath also assaulted him (Na1ayan) as a result of ‘which he sustained head injuries and his bone was nactured. In ‘paia 6 of the statement, he stated that accused Laminath and Barsan assaulted his bmther by Tangia and Lqthi, as a result of which, his brother died on spot. In cross-examinan'on, he denied the suggestion that because deceased Ghanshyam Prasad was his brother, he was giving false evidence. He has been cross-examined at length, but there is nothing to discard the testimony. He stated that it is not correct to say that on Sunday, there was no quarrel in the house of his brother Ghanshyam Pxasad Verma with accused persons. It was also suggested that before going to the house of the accused, they had consumed the liquor but he denied. It was also denied that there was enmity between the brothers. His statement is corroborated by P.W. 10 Badri Prasad. He is the son of Naxayan (PW/ 8). He stated that his brother Surendra informed him that a quarrel was going on with his father Narayan and his uncle Ghanshyam Prasad verma. On hearing this, he reached the spot i.e. the Gali in n‘ont of the hOuse of accused persons and saw that his uncle was lying dead on the mad and there were injuries and / \\ bleeding on his body and accused Laxminath was standing on the { door with a Tangia, ma 9 \ 9) Learned counsel for the State relying upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Prlthvi (initial? Vs. Mann-q and others, reported in Am 2004 $C 2729Mcontended ltbat injured wimess though he is related to deceased, can be relied ifor convicting the aceused persons. On the contrary, learned ‘counsel for the appellants submit that the witness although Einjuled, is in relation of the brother of the deceased, therefore, being interested with the deceased, should not be believed. ; x- 10) ‘Naiayan and rushed to the spot and found that accused c :Laxminath was standing outside the house holding Tangia and by that time his uncle Ghanshyam Prasad Verma'Was beaten with tangia and lathi. He also found Naxayan lying unconscious. Narayan had injury on his head and back. His giand mother was there. Badri Prasad went to Police Station along with Santosh and lodged the iilst informah‘on report. There is nothing in the cross— examination. Badn' Prasad (PW/ 10) is the person who is the son of 11) We have gone through the recoxd vexy minutely. Learned trial Judge has also considered and discussed the i. evidence in great detail in paras 20, 21, 22 and 26. Learned trial Court in its judgnent of conviction and sentence has categorically mentioned that the incident took place due to some money dispute. When the deceased along with his brother Narayan (PW.8) went to the house of accused persons, demanding money, refusal to pay the same by the appellants led to scume and in the course of the mc1dent accused persons brought lath1 and tangla and indicted multiple injuries to the deceased The learned trial Court has also categorically mentioned in its judgment that the \ ,Lv/ statement of brother of the deceased recorded during the trial cannot be said to be unreliable. € 12) octor H.N. Naik, (PW/ 4) who conducted‘post morrem D ‘ on the body of the deceased, has deposed injuries as follows. “1) The facial contour distorted, bleeding from both ears present. 2) Incised wound 5 cm x 2 x 2 1/2 cm over right mandibular border, obliquely placed. 3) Incised would 5 X 2 X 3 cm just below chin, mandible bone out, transversely placed. a 4) Bruise 8 x 3 cm transversely placed, anterior aspect of neck. Bluish—Red coloured. 5) Bruise 12 x 2 cm, 3 in No. Parallel to each other obliquely placed over right shoulder anteriorly, extending nom axillary fossa to supra clavicular toss right, bluish —red coloured. 6) Bruise 6 x 3 cm left side of chest, supra mammary region. Bluish red coloured. 7) Bruise 6 x ’2 cm over right side of chest below mammary region obliquely placed. 0 8) Bruise 2O x 3 cm, vertically placed, extending from left parasternal area to below umblicus Bluish red coloured. 9) Bruise 10 x 3 cm, Bluish-Red over left thigh antero lateral aspect, upper part, vertical placed. \.\ 10) Bruise 8 X g cms over medical aspect of right thigh in middle, obiiquely placed. Injuries are ante mortem in nature”. \ \ @ 1] 13) Doctor in his post mortem report, has opined that the cause of death is due to excessive hemorrhage and shock resulting from sustained injuries. 9 14) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, we are of the opinion that there is nothing substantial on record to show or prove that the hnding recorded by the trial Coult is perverse or erroneous or calls for any khlassws ‘ intervention. The’trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding. There is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of "t § sentence passed by the trial Court. 15) In the result, the judgment, conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court are maintained and the appeals are dismissed. 16) Accused Laxminath remained in custody and has undergone the sentence. Accused Barasan is on bail. Accused Barsan to surrender before the trial court concerned on or before 2/ 12/ 2005 to undergo the remaining sentence. 17) ‘ Copy of the judgment be placed in both the appeals i‘ i.e., Criminal Appeals No.845/92 and 846i/q9%. il Sd/— W l V.K. Shrivastava Judge ) L Sdl- Fakhruddin Judge 22/09/2005 22/09/2005 Raju /Pathak