HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM: HONBLE MR.T.P.SMARMA & HONBLE MR. N.K. Agprwal, JJ. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT Criminal ADoeal No. 1109 of 92 Yadram s6n of Tularam caste Satnami aged 24 years, resident 6f Sohagpur, P.S. Sarsiva, Distt. Raipur CQ Versus State of (^hhattisgarh through P.S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG Crimlrial Aooeal No. 191 of93 Jeet Rain, son of Tularam caste Satnami aged 20 years, resideht of Sohagpur, P.S. Sarsiva, Distt. Raipur CG Versus State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Ma.sturi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG I^resgnt-Shri Abhay Tiwari, Adv. for the appellant in Cr.A. N6. 1109/1992. Shri G.P. Kurr^, Adv. for appeflant in Cr.A. No. 191/93. S)iri R^^pdTaTripathi, Panel Lawyer for fhe State. ORAL JUDGBBBNT (36-3-2010) Th<^ judjgme^t ofthp Court was deifvered by T.P. Sharma, J.:- 1. Criiiimal Appeal No. 1109/92 t;|led by appellant Yadram s^. Cninfnpl Appe^l No. 191/93 filed by appellant Jeetram are ari,§iq^ out of f(ie judgment of conviction and order of ^entence dated 16-9-1992 pajssed by Vfh Additional Sessions Jydge, Bil^spLir in Session? Trial No. 173/90, therefore, they are being disposed of by tNs commonjudgment 2. The afpresaid criminal appq^ls are directed against th6 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16-9- 1992 in Sessions Trial No. 173/90 whereby and whereunder leamed Additional Sessions Judge afl:er holding appellants BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.06 13:09:10 +0530 guilty for causing culpable homicide amounting to murder of Bundram and sharing common intention, convicted appellant Yaclram under Section 302 ofI.P.C. and appellatit Jeetram vmder Section 302 read wifh Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced each of fhem to undergo imprisoiuaent for life. 3. Judgment of Gonviction is impugped on the ground that without there being any clinching and credible evidence sufiicient for convicting the appellants, fhe Court below has convicted and sentenced them as aforementioned and thereby committed Ulegality. 4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are fhat on fateful day of 23-3-90 at about 8.00 a.m. appellants who are brothers and deceased Buridram were removing stone firom quany. Dunng the course of removing the stones, appeUant Jeetram aiad Bundram quarreled on the ground of one stone which was lying beside the areas allotted to them for remoiving stones, then appeUant Jeetram pushed Bimdram in the quany and Yadram assaulted Bundram by handle of Qainti over his head and caused 4-5 repeated injuries. Bundram fell down. Persons present near fhe place of incident, intcrvened and they took Bundram to Police Station. P.W. 1 Bharat Lal lodgedF.LR. vide Ex. P-1. They took the injured to hospital for treatment where he died at about 12.00 noon on the same day. Information rcgarding deafh of Bundram was given to FoUce Statian City Kotwali by P.W. 6 Dr. S.K. Verma vide Ex. P-7. Merg was recorded vide Ex. P-10. The Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence. Aftei1 summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-2, Inquest over the dead bo<ty was prepared vide Ex. P-3. Dead body was sent for ^iutopsy to ^^rdar Va|lat)h Bhai Patel Hospital, Bilaspiu* vide Ex. P-25. P.W. 4 Dr. P.C. Qupta conducted autopsy vide Ex. P-4 and foui^d following injuries:- i. One lacerQted wound of7.5 cm x 1 cmx bone deep over left frpntal panetal region. T^ ii. Lacerated wound of 3 cm x 1 cm x bone dcep over left panetal aresL iii. Lacerated woimd of 7 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep over parieto ocdpital reglon, lcm above injury No. 2. iv. Lacerated wound of 6.5 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep 2 cm above injury no. 3. v. Abrasion of 2 cm x 1 cm, 2 cm over left side of chest over lower one fhird portion. vi. Frontal and occipital bone was found fractured. Mode of death was shock and death was homiddal in nature. 5. During fhe coLirse of investi^tion, blood stained and plcdn soU were recovered Jfrom fhe spot vide Ex. P-18. Appellants werc taken into custody. Appellant Yadram made disclosurc statement of handle of Qauiti vide Ex. P-14. Same was recovercd flx>m Yadram vide Ex. P-15. Qne lungi was scized from appellant Y9,dram vide Ex. P-16. Blood stained clothcs ofaccu^ed ^eetram were seized vide Ex. P-17. Clothes ofthe deceased aftef autopsy were selzed vide Ex. P-19. Seized articles were sent for cheiiiical e^amlnation vide Ex. P-21. 6. Statements of accused persons were rccorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedurc, 1973 (heretnafter referred to as <the Code'). After coinpletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur who in tum committed the case to the Court of the Sessions Judge, BUaspur fi^om where the Additional Sessions Judge received fhe case on transfer for trial. 7 In order to prove the guilt of appellaats, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statements of the accused pers6ns were also recorded under Section 313 ofthe Code where they denied fhe circumstances appearing against them and claimed iniiocence and false implication. They took specific defence of right of exerdse of prtvate ^ defence. 8. After aflbrding opportunity of hcaring to the parties, leamed Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. 9. We have heard Shri Abhay Tiwari, leamed counsel appearing for appellant Yadram in Cr.A. No. 1109/92, Shri G.P. Kiirrc, leamed counsel appearing for appellant Jeetram in Cr. A. No. 191/93 and Shri Rajendra Tripathi, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for fhe State/respondent and perused the judgment impugned and the record offhe Court below. lO.Shri Abhay Tiwari and Shri Q.P.Kurre, leamed coi.msel for the appellants vehementty argued that in the present case, injuries caused to deceased Bundram by appellant Yadram have not been substantiaUy disputed. Thcy ftirfher ailgued that Yadram has caused miniTniim injury in order to save t^s brother Jeetram flrom deceased Bundram. Yadram has not exceeded his right of private defence avaUable to him under the law, therefore, fhe appellants have not committed any offence. They furfher argued that in case, fheyexceeded right of private defence, tfaeir act does not travel be^^ond Section Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. ll.On the other hand, Shri Rajendra Tripathi, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposed tlie appeal and argued that the injuries caused and weapon used by Yadram clearly establish fhat wifh intention to cause culpable homicide amounting to murder, Yadram has caused fatal uijury to deccased Biindram in sharing common intention with Jeetram. l2.In order to appreciate fhe argument advanced by leamed counsel for the parties, we have exanained the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in the Ught of the defence taken by fhe appellants. l3.In the present case, homicidal death as a result offatal ante mortem injuiy has not been substantially disputed by the appellants, otherwise it is established by the evidence ofP.W. 4 Dr. P.C. Oupta and autopsy report Ex. P-4 which reveals that fhere were five injuries over the body of the deceased including fracture of frontal and occipital bone and fhercfore, death was homicidal tn nature. l4.As regards complicity of the ap^ellants in fhe crime hi question, conviction is based on evidence of eye-witnesses P.W. 1 Bharatlal, P.W. 2 Ravishankar, P.W. 3 Hridayram and P.W. 16 Thandram, who have deposed that at the time of incident, appellants Jeetram, Yadram and deceased Bundram were renioving stones from quarries adjoirui^ to each ofher. On account of fhe dispute rclating to a stone, Jeetram pushed Bundram and Bundram fell down. They intercepted the quarrel. Thereafter again Jeetram arid Bundram started quarreHng. Jeetram pushed Bundram on the Uoor. AppeUant Yadram took out stick (handle of gainti) and assaulted over head of Bundram 5 to 6 times and caused fatal injuries. Then th^y took Bundram to police station and lodged F.I.R. Ex.-l. Defence has examined these witnesses in detaU but they t^ave stuck to their version relating to quarrel and injuiy caused by Yadram by handte of gainti. The evidence of aforesaid witaesses clearty establishes that fhe appellants and Bundram were removing stones and quarrel took place relating to removal of a stone, then Yadram assaulted Bundram by handle of gainti. P.W. 1 Bharaflal tn para 9 of Ms cross-exammation has stated tihat one stone which was the cause of dispute was tying m the place of BundraiQ and Yadram. Then some alteiication took place between both the parties ^nd they quarreled. It shows that the quarrel took place without any premeditation. There was no prior motive. Yadram took out handle of gainti fi^om near the place of incident and caused injiuy to deceased Bundram. Both the parties were claiming their ri^it over the stone which was found between the area of bofh the parties. The evidence of aforcsaid witnesses clearly establishes that the inddent took place on account of fhe dispute relatkig to claim of stone which both the parties have right to claim, o '<?? \ then Yadram a^saulted tiie deceascsd. Fii-idmg relating to injury caused by Yadram to Bmidram lecorded by >the ti-ial Court is based on legal and clmching evidence sustainable under fhe law. l5.As regards motive for commisslon of mui'dcr is concemed, evidence of aforesaid witnesses clearly reveals that the incident took place all of a siidden on account of claim over one stone during tbe course of their business of removing the stones. Both tiie parties quarreled and Yadrain assaulted Bundram by hundle of the ganiti, shows that appellant Yadram has not caused mjuiy to the deceased wifh intention to cause his dciath but he assaulted him all of a sudden at spur of moment aiid whUe inflicting injuries, it was wifhin his kaowledge tliat Bundram may die due to the iryuiy. Therefore, his act does not travel beyond fhe scope of Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. Like wise, in sharing common intention, the act of accus»cd Jeetram does not travel beyond Section 304 Pai-t 11 read witfa Section 34 of I.P.C. Therefore, whUe convicting the appellant Yadram under Seetion 302 of I.P.C. and appellant Jcetram under Section 302 read with S^ction 34 of I.P.C., leamed Additional Sessions Judge lias not considered ttie circumstances in which ftie incident took place and tliereby comuiitted ille^lity. l6.For tiie tbregomg reasony, Cr. A. No. 1109/92 tiled by appellant Yadram and Cr. A. No. 191/93 filed by appellant Jeetram are paitly allowed. Conviction of appeUant Yadram under Section 302 of I.P.C. and conviction of appellant Jeetram under Section 302 read wifti Section 34 ofI.P.C. are altered to Sections 304 Part U and 304 P&rt H read with Section 34 of I.P.C. respectreely. They are in custody since 25-3-90 tiU 20-6-2002 i.e. for more than 12 years. They are sentenced to the custodial period. They are on bail. They need not smi-ender. _ - Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge