Xir-189(Jail)C.J. P.R./1-91 No. Father's name ~f^^<W ar^\ -fiw.^)- sfW - -vr^-s-iS, -arFfr - ^Frit^- Residence ~^^r - '^^vT (.-y S^ Age _26_^- Sentenced to 'S-FIST/oT %^7S'^- on_8/3//994 Under Section 'SvS. '~»7i> ys-TQ^ •/' ^y^vr-i^t -/^f^- 3/v^- ^^- saaw^by.Sf —f^KSJ- -^Hy/ 3T.!HT),2JS^/ VS^ w Tt is explained to the prisoner that if he states he wishes to b6 represented by a legal Ipractitioaer the appsllate Court will not prj:-;d with ths ca-.e f->,- ss^s-! d-tys ua'eii As legal practitioner appears earlier. Ifthe legal practitioner does not appear within seven days he may not heard at all. iftbe prisoner states that he does not wish to be repre- sented by legal practitioner the court may proceed at once with the case and will not be obliged to give a hearing to any legal practitioner who should appear. VSK^ I Date of Applicatioa for copyofjudgement ""'"*'i;..... ?^^ Date OB which copy received_ •3r Date on which Appea! seat. x f& /9 //594^ Whether the prisoBer wishes to be represented or aot. No. ^y^ Confined in '^JS^SfT^- ^ y^ffSS~ s f-o f^-9fy J'/.^- °; W a «?7Y^7~ Cwy N®._7.5a/^/&'//99^' _Dated. ^ihHi^ ^ 1 .^. o ^>_ _p- __ _ _ <^_ 7 Porwarded to the Sfft^ "iysyfvs vf'wy' ~*fip:»V STy" »-sfrvo^" ^SSiff^s^ 'Sift90^^ (^~^ to gether with a copy of judgemeat or erder paised in the case for favour of f ,...%mission to the proper Appi •—^-fS^:-S.T.i>h. ^a^/8e lS/ /?t .T^/S/5' - 'ffpT^: 1 lent y-L Office ".?•->."^ reccipt of record to accompaay the M'mo ef Appeal to the Appeliate court^ f; . -V\ "/ 4fe^^ '"<<, s" •*% No. 7 •,F "1 '>a^ '•••$?Q .. '•tf. :<, ^ f „ RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.06 12:41:56 +0530 ("ai HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Crimmal Appeal No, 1396 of 1994 Rain Kiunar aKas Jhaklet Versus >^J\^± State ofM.P. (now State of Chhattisgarh) fhrough Police Slation - Pratappur, District- Surguja. ICH ; Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. C. Bhadoo, aad HonUe Mr. Justice i,JJ Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate fbr fhe appellaat. Shri Sudhir Bajpayee, Panel lawyer for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (24th July, 2006) The following Judgment of the Court is delivered b;,r Ii. V. 9. The appeUaiit has preferred fhis appeal, froni jafl, under Section 374(2) of fhe Code of Criruijial Proceduie, questionnig fhe legality and correctaess of the judgnient of conviction. aad ori.er of sentence dated 8.9. 1994, whereby fhe Second Additional Sessions Judge, Anibikapur, Distdct- Surguja after holding fhe acciised/appeUant guilty for coininission of fhe offence under Section 302 of fhe Indiaii Knal Code for coiiunitting niiu-der of Ram. Kishan sentenced hiiu to undergo iiiiprisonment for life. The case offh.e prosecution, in brief, is fhat on 27.8, 1988 Ram Kishaii (deceased) was plowing his agricultural field and iii fhe iieighboring field RatttGhand, Rani Vraksh (P.W. 13), Bodhram (P.W.12) and Ghasiiam (P.W.IO) were also plowing tlieu- (g 3. agricultui-Eil field. At aboiit 1 1 a.ni. accused Rani Krunar came near Rani Kishan, where he was plowing his field and attacked oa the head with the axe, which was witnessed by fhe above witnesses. After attacking, fhe accused/appeUant rail away with his axe. The vffla^ers were infonned aboiit fhe incident and Raia Kishan was taken to the police station, where the report(P.W.6-A) of fhe incident was lodped by Rooix-hand (P.W.ll) in the police station- Pratappur. On receiving this report the station house officer, police station Pratappur registered the F.I.R. and left for fhe scene of occiu-rence. After giving notice (Ex. P/9) to ttie panchas he picpared fh.e panchanama (Ex. P/10) ofthe body ofRain Kishao.. The body was sent for postinorteni examniation to fhe primary health centre, Piatappur, -wliere Dr, S. S. Paikra (P.W. 17} conducted the postinorteni and pi^pared the postniortem. report (Ex. P,' 16) aid opiiied that the caiise of death was diie to intra- CKinial heinoiThage. During the investigation plain soU and blood stain sofl werc tateen in to possession fioin tbe place of occun^-nce vide Ex.P/2, blood stain Dhoti offhe deceased was taken io. to possessiou vide Ex.P/3 aud other cloth were taken ilito possession vide Ex. P/4. While in fhe poUce ciistody, the accused gave inenioianduin Ex.P/5 regarding weapo'n of offence i.e. axe aad ui pui^uance to that fhe axe was recovered at the instance ofthe accused vide Ex. P/ 18. After coinpletion of the investigation fhe charge-sheet was filed in the Court of.Judiciat Magisteate First Class, SooKijpur, who in tum coiaiaitted the case to fhe Sessions Judge, Surguja IF:1I .te ! i! @ B? A from where leanied Second Additional Sessions Jiidge, Ambikapur, received fhe case on tran.sfer. TSie prosecution iu order to estabUsh the charges against the accused/appellant examuied as uiaiiy as 20 witnesses. On fhe other hand fhe statem.ent of the accused/appeHaat was recoried under Section 313 of the Code of Ciiminal Procedure in which he deiued the material appeaiiag against him. m the prosecutiou evidence and stated that he is innocent aad he has been falsely iiupKcated. Leamed trial Court after hearing, leamed Additional Public Prosecutor and leai-aed counsel for fhe accused, convicted and sentenced the accused/appeUaat, as nieutioned in para - 1 of this judgnient. We have heard Shri Abhay Tiwan, leai-ned couusel appearing ou behalf of the appeUant and Shri Sudhir Bajpayee, leamed Panel lawyer for fhe i-espondeat/State. As far as the question of homicidal death of Rgun Kishan is concemed, the same has uot been disputed by fh.e counsel for fhe accused/appellant. Even othenvise, fi-om the evideuce of Ghasi Ram (P.W.10), Roopchaiid (P.W. 11), Budhi-am (P.W.12), Ram Viiksha (P.W. 13) and the evidence of Dr. S. S. Paiakra (P.W.17), who conducted the postinortem. ou fhe bedy ofRam Kishan aad foiind that there was an incised wouiid on the head in flie size of3 x Vt x V't inches, over right teinpoiat- parietal portion and there. was a fracture of the skuU, his rcport is Ex.P/16, in which the caiise of death was inentioued as, couia due to excessive bleednig. Thereforc, in view of fhe ^ R 9. abowe evidence it is established fhat the death of Ram Kishan was hoinicidal ia nature. As far as fhe involveinent of the accused/appeUant hi fhe criine ia question is concenied, Ghasi Ram (P.W. 10), Roopchand (P.W. ll)r Budhram (P.W.12) and Ram Vriksha (P.W. 13) are fhe persons who were plowing their fields at fhe nelevaat tiine which was adjacent to the field of ttie deceased Ram. Kishau and they have steted that on 27.8.1988 at about 11 a.m.. when fhe deceased was plowing his field, fhe accused/appeBant, aU of a sudden, canying an axe in his hand caiae there and assaulted the deceased and ran away, caiiying axe wifh him.. In the cross exainination of fhese witnesses fhe defence has not been able to elicit auy circuiiistance or fact which makes fhe evidence of these witnesses iintrusfavorthy or tinreUable. More; over fhe accused m.ade extia jiidicial confession before Gorelal (P.W.20), who has stated that fhe accuscd canie to huu and stated fhat he had attacked his uncle. He disclosed the uncle as Ram Kishan. Therefore, iii view of thc above evidence it is established that fhe accused was the person who attacked the deceased and to fhat extent we do not find any illegatity or uifirmity in the judgnien.t of fhe trial Coilrt as the same is based on fhe legal aud clincliiag evidence and fhere is nothiag ou record from which this Court can take a differeut visw froni fhe trial Court. Leamed counsel for fhe appeDaut argued Ihat therc: was a dispiite between the deceased and the accused rege.idin.g partition of land, as the accused is son of fhe biother of the CSx-' deceased and the deceased was not giving his sliare, thereforc in the heat ofpassion, aU ofa sudden, the acciised/appellant went to fhe field offhe deceased and assaulted him, wifhout havitig any intention to cause his deafh. 10. On the other haud learned Panel lawyer •for fhe State supported the judgiaent. 11, In oider to appreciate the argunients advauced by Sliri Abhay Tnvari, leai-ned counsel for the appeUant, we have perused the eviden.ee. It has coiae on record in the cross exainiiiatioa of fhe witness fhat fhe accused was deniandiag his share of land and on accoiint of fhat there was soine dispute between the accused and deceased, and on the fateful day, all of a siidden fhe accused weut to fhe field of fhe deceased and attacked hun. Thereforc, from. fhe above circum.staaces it cannot be said fhat the accused assaulted fhe' deceased with fhe intention to caiise his death biit the inanner hi which the accused assaulted the deceased and fh.at too wifh axe, it can safely be infen-ed that fhe accused was having knowledge that by assaulting with axe he inay likely to cause deafh of Ram. Kishan. Accordingly, the ofFence agaiust the acczised is inade out iinder Section 304- Part-I! ofthe I.P.C. 12. In the result, fhe conviction and sentence of the appeUant for fhe offence under section 302 caanot be siistained. The appeal is partly aUowed, fhe conviction of fhe appeBant iinder Section 302 of fhe I.P.C. aad sentence for Kfe imprisoument is set- aside and instead the appeUant is convicted under section 304 fi Part-II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisoniuent of 10 years. 13. It is stated by leamed counsel for the appeUant fhat the appellant is in. jail since 30th July, 1988, which is uot disputed by leamed counsel for fhe State. Theiefoie fhe accused is in ciistody for about 18 ^rears, tb.ereforc he has alrcady undergone fiie sentence. He be rcleased forthwith, if not l-equiied m. auy other case. ___— Thakur Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Satish K. Agnihott1 Judge __ _