s XI-HC-78 .in^TwR^ (raT3TR?Tstit11<ti i'i'Ki'iiS^^s :*:'a^g^ tTTtRtl SfWT9i 3^cT '^WW-ii, WiS\WW, RlCtKiy ...Q^./^...3^^... ^R" 200o 3T1^?T 4a<ti (tclt3'!t^) WfRKCTf^cr 311^1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM : HON'feLESHRI L.C.BHADOO& HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, JJ. CRIMtNAL APf)'EAL N0. 322 OF 2000 Appellant vel Respondent Present Shri Ravish Verma Shri Akhii Mishra, ORAL (1 Per L.C.Bhadoo, J. This appeal is directed ag ofsentence dated 7.12.1999 Judge, Jagdalpur jn S.T.No. *i'!<fci41-< 4i><dTfftei^t<Riwi< ^sri^rsn^r Ghadawa Gond 'sus The State of M.P. counsel for the appellant. Lawyerforthe respondent/State. Pbnel JUDGMENT .08.2006) j^inst the judgment of conviction and order pas^ed bythe learned III Additional Sessions £8/99 wherebv the learned Additional T^ XI-HC-78 3n^T?ilf?:)Ni cCTSn^TCTW *)l*iwi sb*lich ssr-srrairpr, 3^fteIT?, [siciKriy . C-^^). 3^-/^Gao_^T 200 w^\ 4^* (liqlg°«<.er) 5RffWBfer3;n^T +KlId41'l t<IKdTfffe'<fl <Rl^K ^ari^iTsn^T Sessions Judge after convicting| the accused/appellant for commission of the offence under Section 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for iife arjd pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further under^o R.i. for one year. 2. 'he prosecution case in brief is that 20.10.1998 at about 10 a.m. when the accused and the dece^sed, father ofthe accused, were present in the house, some attercation tcjok piace between them, as the deceased had asked the accused that he vfas not working and he was not taking the cattle to the field for the purpos^ of grazing, which infuriated the accused on which he picked up a stone a(id attacked with the same on the head of his father, as a result of which cjeceased namely Sadhuram feil down as he received a fracture of occipiNI temporal bone of !eft side of skuil. The matter was reported to the Polic^ Station Benur by Meghnath (PW-2), the viilage Kotwar. On receiving the ['eport the police registered a case under section 302 of the IPC. The ln(/estigating Officer left for the scene of occurrencs, after giving notic^ to the Panchas he prepared the Panchnama ofthe dead body of padhuram (Ex. P-1) in which it has been mentioned that on account of hea|d injury received on 20.10.1998 at about 10a.m. deceased Sadhuram diecj on 21.10.1998 atabout6 a.m. While in the police custody fhe accused g£|vememorandum (Ex. P-4) regarding the stone - weapon of offence, and fn pursuance of that the stone was got recovered under (Ex. P-5). The|dead body was sent for post mortem examination to the Primary He^lth Centre, Kondagaon where Dr. S. '>T XI-HC-78 *<1*IWI ShNTcti 3^'.:!ffqTrPT, s'lfltl'is, Rdiuy . .^T^..^^^0^^ 200 3T(^?Ttra^ (^ig^sr) -3- 3n^Tg>Tf^IR) traTsn^Tsbii* 'ss^^^-"'^''^' ?T(traK(ri?g'3Ti^T Lonhare (PW-10) conducted the and prepared the post mortem the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and the nature of Officer also prepared the site plati investigation the charge sheet wa^ First Class, Jagdalpur, who in tu|r Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur from M^ Judge, received the case on trans(e 3. Prosecution in order to| accused/appellant examined 10 of the accused under section 311: which he denied the material case and stated that he is innoceitt cnme. 4. Learned Additional the accused/appellant and the convicted and sentenced the this judgment. Sessiotis 5. We have heard Mr. Ravis>1 behalf of ihe accused/appeilant ai|id the respondent/State. *i<iF«41'iiit«iT^'fe^ttRi<B;i< ^isrf^iTsn^T bost mortem on the bodv of Sadhuram rejsort (Ex. P-13) in which he opined that lextra dural haematoma and excessive cjeath was homicidal. The Investigating of Ex. P-10. After completion of the filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate tuk'n committed the case to the Court of there the learned ill Additionai Sessions (erfortrial. estabiish the charge against the wtitnesses. On the other hand, statement 13 of the Cr.P.C was also recorded in apjsearing against him in the prosec.ution and has been falsely impticated in the Judge after hearing the counsel for Acfditional Public Prosecutor for the State as mentioned in paragraph one of accilised Verma, tearned counsel appearing on Mr. Akhii Mishra, learned counsel for XI-HC-78 3:n^TwR-ii+ (PITSn^TstiKlch ^•", ^l^lc'll StrHT^i 3^'^qTin^pr, ®TD<H'I<O,(sj<rtltl^< __ ("-<^. 2^Z/^ooa ^T 200 sn^TT^T (^qi3^8r) -ty- BTHTW Trf?cr sn^r 6. The fact of homicidal deatti learned counsel for the evidence of PW-10 Dr. S. Lonl 22.10.1998 on the body of Kotwar, the cause of death wa^ sufficient to cause death in the or| of the extra judicial confession| Meghnath, PW-3 Ganga, PW-5| estabiished that the death of of Sadhuram has not been disputed by accuse|d/appellant. Even otherwise, from the fiare who conducted post mortem on Sadhipram which was identified by the village excessive bleeding, the injuries were pinary course of nature and also in view made by the accused before PW-2 Ghasiva and PW-6 Rameshwar it is SadHuram was homicida! in nature. 7. As far as the involvement question is concemed, from ttf Sarpanch of the viiiage who lodg^d Ghasiya and PW-6 Rameshwar, extra judicial confession before <1 murder of his father and stated ttt his father and himself, his father cattle to the field for the purpose| picked up a stone and attacke<|i evidence of these vvitnesses the the crime in question is establisheti. 8. Learned counsel for the prosecution has not been able tc °hl<lfi-l<i1-< WHvli ff f5<^\ (RlUK ^sri^iTsn^T af the accused/appellant in thecrime in ie evidence of PW-2 Meghnath, the the report in the poiice station, PW-5 it is established that the accused made hese witnesses in connection with the lat there was some altereation between scolded him that he was not taking the of grazing which infuriated him and he his father, therefore, in view of the involvement of the accused/appeliant in accused/appeliant argued that the estabiish the fact against the accused II i;II (S) 1 XI-HC-78 Sn^T^f^TRT tRnsn^Tshiiqi ' ^..'^ 1-SE HTq<tl ShHlch 3^''^Tqi^PT, »Tfltl'IS,Rtcflti^<. ^^^f^/^ C5~'®0 ^ 200 3n^?TTg^ (^fgg^sr) —-S- OTdTW gf?g'3TI^T and that the accused attacked Sadhut; He submitted that even from th^ record that when the accused deceased scoided the accused fcji purpose of grazing, which infurisjt attacked with the same on the skul! bone was fractured and he atabout6a.m. tam with an intention to cause his death. prosecution evidence it has come on the deceased vi/ere in their house, the jr not taking the cattie to the field for the tedhim and he picked up a stone and of his father as a result of which the jjied in the next morning i.e. 21.10.1998 h4ad ttte 9. The argument advanc^ accused/appellant is based on same is not without merit. The| goes to show that fhere was sonf accused and the accused. The a| with it on the head of his fathel; established that the case is covet the !PC because the accused premeditation in a sudden fight quarrel without taking any undue manner. 10. In the result, we are of the the accused under section Accordingly, the appeal partly *i<<(n41-i irpraY rf fei^t n^Rsrc ^a-ri^rR'sn^T ^d by learned counsel for the materiai avaiiabte on record and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses le altereation between the father of the :cused picked up a stone and attacked In view of the above evidence it is ^ed under exception 4 of section 300 of assaulted the deceased without any jn the heat of passion upon a sudden ^dvantage or acted in a cruel or unusual (sonsidered opinion that.the conviction of 302 of the IPC cannot be sustained. Isucceeds and the conviction of the XI-HC-78 sn^r^iTR-fich craT3n^Ts»it|icb ^)~/^- tTTHflTSbllch 3^'^rpTT?PT, ®i{l^'l<o,fsKrtl^y _^C^:^ 32^/^cra TrTW"""""""/""* v'^r 200 3TI^?T<<a<0 (i^cii^si^iT) "•^— eTBTWHf^rsti^r accused/appellant under sectior< thereof the appellant is convict^d sentenced to undergo Rl for sev^n the accused/appellant is in custcjdy undergone the sentence imposed| set at libertv forthwith if not reauir Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge tii'i][<-i<i'l-f iitinT if to<ft rfSftSR ^iSTl^irST^T 302 of the IPC is set aside, instead under section 304-11 of the IPC and years. From the record it appears that since 1998 and thus he has already upon him. 11. [n the aforesaid circumstahces, it is directed that the appeliant be ^d in any other case. Sd/- ; Dhirendra Mishra Judge f