HI6H COURT OF CHHAmS6ARH AT BILA-SPUft /-•,' 's.ill Hori'ble Aitr.T.P.SHARM.A & Hon'bteter.ft.L.JWANWAR.JJ. •"'• ".n Jail) Ao_Dea!No. 106.3 of 1992 1. Chamru ftam Son of Lltting (Snnda aged 6bout67yrs. (ijied ana cieieted) 2- M.ahesh Ra«n S/o Chamr'u Rnm Sar'da nged about 32 yrs. 3. iChumr'u alias S'lhaspa"' S/o Cha""'ui*aw aged about 22 yrs. (iSieddnddeieted) j 4- Rcidhshai . a!ias Singhanpurhin W/o Chamruraffl Sonda aged about 62 yrs r/'a viliage Somkera Tnana Tamnar t>istr*i€tRQiQdr'fo. Versus S-tate of M.P. through the 5.0. Famnar 0istt.Raigarh SECTION 374(&) OF THE CObE OP CRIMINAL PROCE&Ufefc, 1973) Present: My,^h^hov Tlwari. counss! for ths Mr.Rakesh Kumar Jha, t)y.6ovt.Acivocate for the State/respondent. | (I rO^-.—</J^.** ^1"b m«a^>c;Uvii -r T"e Judgment of the Cwft was 1. Challenge in this appea! is to sentence dsted 3.9-1$92 passed by RQiQQrh. tn Ssssions TriQl N6.152^91 Secohd Additio""' Ssssions -jt FiebFuary;20!0) I'iieiis'ersdbyT.P.Sharma, J.i- appe.llants. judgment of cnnviction A order 1f 'e Second Addjtiona! Sessibns jud^e, 9f,.wh^fehy . & j '"hei'eynelB" learr'yd Iffci' i •! nflsef^nolding i the' apjiellan cor""('issio" of culpoble hoTticida! death ainountirig to mu''der of Kar'tikron'. after committing house tr'ess-pass, conyicted the present appellants aiong with other two co-accused persons under Section 302 read wi'rii Section 34 arsd 450 of 'H^e Zndian Pe-nsl Cod^ Qnd ssptsnc^d 't^sm to u^dsrQc" imp!'i.so"ment for iife "nd rigorous iffiprisoninent for fi'/e years, r%5^ectlv^lv_ ; ^^^-.^.i i7—.^- . 2. JudgrRent is impugned on the ground that wil+iout cny iota of evidence, the Court below h.as conyicted and sentenced the appeilmts as aforementioned eind thereby coinmitted IHeQQilitv. ^ 3. Case of tha Drose.cutlon, In brti^f. l5 'tticxt Q" ti^s fattgful doy of 29.7.91 ^t about 4 p.m- at vHlage Samkera, distr'ic+ Raigarh, the.appe'tants aiong|v>?ith other co-accused persons af+er comm'tting Grimina! house tress-paSS 'in order to commit the offence pun'shabte "lith capital intp!'isonment dnd ir' shorin^ conftrnon ints^tton, hsys cont?^itted cutDobls hoi^icida! ^'sath ar"ou"tirig to mur'der of KQF'tikrom, they dragged Kartikroini frorn his Mouse <f*c! assaulteci him- Whs?i he fel! down. the coQell^ints ws"t awov from the spot. Wifs of dsc€G3ed KQTtlkrorn na>?te!y Scyitri Bcii (P\y~l) pro^idsd water to Kar'tikr'om. Whiie They wer«taking injured to the hospita!, Injur'ed died. Savitri Bci has !odged the F.I-R. vtde Ex.P/1. Mefg was oilso r'eco'rded yide Ex.P/35. ZriV£St!Q<xtlnQ offlcs^ oroccsded f<?r the scen^ of occurl'enc® and <xfter su!'nmonirt9 th& y'/ilnssses vlde; Ex-P/21^ in^usst over the body of dsceased JCartikroTT1 yycis pr*epcirecj yide Ex.P/22. Dead ^n^y of 'i'^e deceased was sent for autopsy to Primdry Health Ce"tr-e, TQ>Tincr] vide Ex.P/26 where &r-A.©.Sheikhff!\y-l6) conduc+ed ihquest oyer the Uo9y "f decaased Kartikra>T'. vide Ex-P/30^c"d found the foKowing ir'juries, 1) One contus'on of 12" x 3/4" over chest 2) One contuslon of 7" x 3/4" oyar' abdon'en Ofis contusion o'f 3.5" ?< B/41t below cuxilitirv rsQion 4) One contusion of 1" y.3/4" oyer right shou!der 5) One contusion of 4" x l/" over !eftsc"pu!ar region dead .J m BEw !i^i WSt 6) One contusio" of 8" x 3/4* on back left scapu'ar' region 7) One contusion of 4" x3/4" on th.e back of vertebra! column S^ Thres eibrcislons on wQist 9) Incised wound o'/er rsght o.rm of I" x 4" x ^" 10)I"cised wound over scalp occipitc! region of 1" x ?" Cause of death wos Syncope as a resuit of per'foration o"d rupturs of 'eft lung a"d excessive in+ernal heamorrhage and death was homicidal in naturs- 4. Biood^t^inGd 3i3?T»chrt; bloodstai^sd soll^ plain soll Gnd broks;^ piece of door* we.re, recover'ed from ths spot vide Ex.P/3- &uring the courSe of jnvestigation, cppellant Mah.esh Rain made disclosure statement of stick and axs vide Ex.P/10. same were recoyered from his 'nsteu'ice yide Ex.P/13 another ssDDslicint Khus?irlu © Sohctsr%iln Ricids disc!osilire stfftel?i$nt of stick y'de H^.P/11, satne was r'ecoyered at his i^stQnce yide Ex.P/37 Q?1d cnlother appel!a"t Chamru Rem 'nade disc'osure staternent of stick vide Ex.P/12, saine was rweoyered at his instcBice yide Ex.P/36. One bloodstainedl+owel was seized fr'om nppeltant Sahasrai" yide Ex.P/44, one bloodstained 'ungi was seized from appe!!cnt Maheshram vide Ex.P/5 and one baniyap was seized frow cppe'leBit Chamru vide Ex.P/6. Nails of cppeHants GHqrafu, 1 Sahasrat" and Mahesh RatT! wer" cut nnd seized yide Exs-P/7 +o P/9| Spot map was pr-epared by ir'ves+igating officer vide Ex.P/14. Sealec! cio'^'es of the decsased fifter autopsy were seized vide Ex.P/15. Appe!!a"t Radhabai made disciosur'e statement reldtmQ to axe vide Ex.P/16. same uuasseized 1'"" . '. yide Ex.P/17. Patwari a!so prepar'ed the spot mop yide Ex-P/18. Seized I Qr!'ticl^s were sent for ch^Tiical €xcl?nii'l]Glt!on ond pre^ncs of b!6^d WGS i confirmed over stick and axe and clothes recoveredfro"! Mnhesh l?.(i"' and 1 Rodhabai vlde Ex.P/41- N 5. St<1itS!Tt€fitsof the; witnesse^ wer*e r%£orde<jundsr S^ction 161 of thsCode of Criminat Procedure, 1973 (m shori''Code'). Af'ter comptetion of inyestigation, cliarge Sheet wasifited before the .Tudicia! M<gistrffTi First C!ass. ^hQlr*Qhodrt. who 'n tur!n co^ni^itted thls CQSE tb 'H^ei Cnl^i<t of :;':ilNltf1 'SNKSiS «•'„?' Sessions, Raigar'h, fr'orp. wher'e. lear'ned Sscond Additional Sessions .Judge Raigarh, receiyed tha case o" tra"sfer for trial. 6. I" or'der to proye •rtie gui't of the accused/appellonts, 1+ie prosecution Kwwmed as rpony as 17 witnesses- Stateme"ts of ths occused/appeHan+s wers recor'cled under" Sectiors 313 of ths Code where they denied the c'rcu^nstances csppSQring 'Q^ainst l^hsin cKid pieadsd innocence <*nd fcJse ifplication. The cppellcnts hoye a'so adduced defence wtnesses Sanjay o (DW-1) cmd &r..4.(5.She!kh (DW-2). Sanjay has deposed that Kartikran'i has .assculted him by oys,. Dr.A-S.Sheikh (&W-2) has deposed that on 29-7.91 he hos €?<ai?tipBd SGtnioy a?id found two incised wounds over the bcck and ^houlciisr1 of Sc"anv. son of £U3DsiirtntMcihesh. 7. After ^ffording <tf> oppor'tunity of hearing to ths pcsrties^ Isarned Second Addi+lona! Sessions Judge, Raigarh has conyicted and sentericed the iDeJJG^it^ crs (2forellnent!onftd. 8. Ws have heard Mr.Abhay Tiwari, counsel for the <^3pellants suid M.r'.Rakesh Jha, Dy.(5ovt.Advoc<rte for the State/respondent and perusedi the jud3n''ent impugned ns also record of the tries! Cou'*t- | 9- Le<!>'"ed counsel for the appeltants v'ehemently argues that during the courss of D'sndsncy of this aobeol, ap2!sllQ"t Mo.l find 3 di%d <*"d In compllance of the Order dated 29.3.2000 name of qspelfants Chnmru Ram and Khumaru clias Schaisr'atn were deleted- Lecrned counsel further argues that in tiie present case, the cppellnnts hoya not assau!ted the deceased KQrtikr'am- The. prosecution has not provecl its case beyo^d al! shadow of doubt. Fir'stly, deceased Knrtiki'am has o«saulted the son of appellant Mohesh Raw i.e. Saijoy by axe over his shoulder and bacl^ and cau^d injury, then in exercise of the right of pr'vats defence, appeilant ftadhabai o-id oppel'ant Mahesh Ram have used minimum 'force.nscessary to save their son- L-ec!'"sd counse! contentsd that eypel!cBlt R'idhabai i^as in custody since 6.8.91 and appeilaht Mahesh was v. custody since 3i.j7-91. .4ppeltan+ Radh.abai was released on bai! vide order (iated 21.4.99 and i^elloint Mrthesh RQni WQS releQsed o)'1 bsil vid's order dat^d 9-1-2001 which ars suffscierit ^n1^rlc^ for theni 10. On the other ha"d, Sear'ned State counse! supported the judgment impugned. 11. Is^ or'der to Q^preclate the a?*gui?i®nt5adyar'ced oti b$h%!f of the po.rtis<, we have examined the eyjdence adduced on behatf of •liie "arties-1" the o • present case, hon'icida! deathas a result of fatal aid wite-mortem injur'ies ha^ not bee" substantiaHy disputed by the appellants, on the othsr' hand ' olso estabtished by the eyidence of &r-.4.6.Sheikh (PW-16) ond autopsy r'epo?'t yide Ex-P/30 which reveQls that cause of death was Syncope ns a resu't of pe'rfor'ation and r'upture of left iung ondjdeath was homicida! i" nature. 12. As regards •the complicity of the accused/appellants in the cr'ime i" ques+io" is concerned, the conviction is based on the evidenGe of eyewitnesses Sayitri Besi (PW-1), wife of deceased Kartikram, Tejri"' @ Tem" (PW-2), Kailash Bai (PW-S), Amarta! (PW-4), Oeven+i Ba' Q'W-T), wife of Pardeshi, Padmc (PW-8), Par-yati Bal (PW-9) a"d Pardeshi (RW-10). They haye deposed in their" eviyences that al! the Qppellants entep^d intb the house of beyenti Bai (PW-7) and Pa''deshi (PW-10) who are wife and husband where the deceased Kcr'tlkrom was preser't, 1+>ey took out •t+ie deceased cnd assaulted by axe and stlck ald caused fata! injuries. beyenti Bai (PVi/-7) has specifically deposed i" her ev'dence that she was present in her hou^. KQr*t!kr'am cor^e insids hsp hous®and ciossd the door, but the appel!cL"ts can'e ond after br'enking the door", they drdgged Kar'til'ra'n and ossauited him- Afflar'Ia! (PW-4) has deposed v. his eyidence that Ka*'+ikrcrn c<s?^® with a><$ fr'o?^ h's house and w$"t insids ths house of fGther oif ^pelJant Mahesh RaF" natnely Chamru ftam, then wife of Ma-hesh Rai> shouted that he has assaulted her son, then Kadhabai dr-nggted the deceased aionq i.*nth axe. froffi the house of M,Qhesh 'rtien d?ceose.d Kartikr'am fled away towards the house of Pardeshi, the appeilar'ts also jo^ S3uomo|i0 anp saijoui inD| 31)4. 'puiui pa|j.^ndun puo iU|i»o Aq apn+i+onso pUp UOISj38dd tj+IM pS+DjnSjIO 'UStjin AjlSSaOSu aq piuOM 4.0ljni U0i.|+ •isi^.iinj. s|++ij B apusj.ap sjtj ssiiijoo +uaUiOiU au^. j.o +OSLJ st|4. 4.0 sij j.] usAg -d?6uup sij+ pdsd o+ papsau sojo^. sspaud aij4. '.ssjogs usp|o6^ uj ij6iam o+ pat-Osdxa+0li Sl '^SVft.uUO JO ^.|SSUilL| j.O q>Ul| pUDSj.lj j.O |iJ8d 4.USUIUIUii 44.W1 p^ao^. uos^ad o +nq 'aousj.ap a+OAwd j.o +L|6u ^iai|+ pspaagxa SAOLJ Asi.(4. 4.0t(+ jcaAsj uiDu>ji4.^c>)j pasoaaap j.o npoq aL|+ uaAo punoj. saunfui ^6noLj4. ? 'aguaj.ap s+oAi^d j.o +461^ UISLJ+ j.o aspjsxa ui uitsj>|i4.ju)| pasoasap o+ sw^rfw pasnco aAoi| Aaij+ +oi.j+ smut|s silij. 'li+Dap S!4 pasnos puo uiujyji+^o^ p^spa>ap ps+inssso aAo^ uos puo rfalj+Dj. '^aL|4.0Ui SJiD QLjm 5+UO||addD sL(4. j|D uaiij^, )|3oq SLJ+ puo s.isp|noijs JiStj+ da/io spunom pssiOui pssnfKi pu-o jBqoi^pDy +uo|]addD puo XupuuS pa+jnossD SOL| IUD^>|14.JD-/( p^.OSOSp 3LJ+ +OIJ4. 5|v3AS>4 tiOi+n3SS0.4U SLJ4. j.0 tfStttfptA^ 3*jj+u3 ^4+ rAiP^Ut^MP"y'If!ri "S3USj.3p v^DMviu ^O +l|^iji *'ifsl|+ pSp'SSSXS SADI^ Asi|4. L|6n0l|4. '33u5j.5p S^OAl^d J.O +^61.4 jiSl^j. ^,0 3S\3f^sSj<'S Ui y40b<>|t4-«4D^| p^4-Ji^t^>y 3Avl<| A3l|4- USi^. 3>;u AC| tOC|Ol|p0^j pUu AD| y<3^ pS+iuSSSO SGl^ iU!>»,i>|i4.Ju^| p^^OS05p 4-^'4+ ^^ud(j^p ^i^.ESQQS ®t<J4- U3>>|B*+ £"4^^^S^,5p Si^J- 'SSttJHlUl SStflp. pSUiUfOX®+OU £vl|uO|+n^3SO^u ^i^l. ST 'Buipsajq tj+jM ^ x ^ x ^ j.o quinLj4. +ij6id d3t| -ISAO punom ^ pasjsuj auo puc Buipasjq SAiSSsax®tj+iM jspjnoL|s +j.sj d'sq jaAO ,,^ x ,j x ,,g f0 punom pas\9w auo 'puotj +j.a] >iSAo uuisoiiqo 'dSpjnoijs .otj •!SAO Suizoo soiin p00|q pUTB „•£X ^^ x' ^g j.o punoM pasi3Ui suo puno^ puiB jDqoLjpBy 4.110] jsddo pauiiuoxa SOL| stj •Ui'd g^-^ 4.noqo +D nDp auios 344. uo +Bq+ pssodsp osio soi| ffH °S/Q^3 ffpf^ •J3p|HGL]£4-^-°J »*3FAG y-^ ^' u-Y j-0 pUnOnn p3?i3Lii 3UG pUK uUEZOO SCm pOOjq '^ X ^A X »7/£-t" J3p|nous 344. m0|3q >j3oq si|4. JSAO punoM p3&|^ui ®uopunoj. &i| ^Aioruu^ j,o; uof4.£>UttUDSo lio +Di|4. ps&odsp SOlj 'uiu 9 4-r'°qii +D +uspj3ui ^o a+op 8141. uo ifi'/.'gg uo Uiug ijsatjc^y j.o uos '/BfuDS paiiiiucxa soi.) oijwt (2-/v^Q) lj3i'84S 9 V ''Q 'ps4.|nBSSD puo iujLj pasuLjs 9 ^/ 15.1" the present case, !t reveals that Scnjcy, son of Mahesh Ram was only aged about 8 years whom Kartikrcm has caused incjsed wound by axe over hisshoufder shows the presence of eminent danger. 16.Cons]dsrin3 the cose of defsnce Qnd injury fou^c! oyer the body of the deceased, it is cleai" thct the appellaits have exceeded •t+ieir right of private defence and they haye caused more injuries, but they have not caused any injury or death of deceased Kartikran' with inteht to cause his de«th,therefore, their act squarely fall withi" the scope of Section 304 Part T of the Xndicai Pena! Code. ^ 17.,Lenr'"ed Second Additiona! Sessions Judge while convicting the appel|lants under Section 302 read witii Section 34 of the India" Penal Gode has not considered the fact that the ; appellar'ts have caused injuries after receiying i"jury to Sanjoy and appellont Radhoibai by the dec<jased Kar+ikram and they have only exc<eded theif right of priyate defence n"d thereby the Court below has coTsmitted illegality- 18. For" the for'egoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the act of { the appeHants doe®"ot tr'aye! beuor'd the scope of Section 304 Par't I of .•1' ' • . ' ; the Indian Persal Code. 19.In the result, the appeal is par-tlYallowed. The conviction of the appel ants under Section 302 read wi+h Section 34 of the Indian PenaF Co<!!e is altered to Ssction 304 Pcrt I of the Indiw Pena! Gode a"d sentenced to undergo rigorous impr'isonment 'for 7 years- However, ths conyiction imposed upon the appellants under Section 450 of the Indian Penal tCode and sentence thereunder is hereby "laintained. Appellants .Mnhesh Ram cmd qppellant Radhabai are on bai'l. Appellont M.ohesh Ram has cpmp|eted th®ssnte'ncs, the'^efore, hc ncedinQt surr^nds?* be-for^ liie tri<xl CoM^ffin^ appellont Radhabai is directed +o surl'ender herse'f immedlately before the Second Additiona! Sessio"s judge, Rasgar-h for serying the rem^ining sentence. / sd/-l. ' 1 / "•L.Jhanwar ^P.SharmaT 1 / Judge Judge f - • ; , ' ~~~—-——-—____ !']~]~'-]