E HIGH‘c'oURT OF CHHATTls.GARH BILAsPIUR' " Criminal Aggeal No.984 of 2003 APPELLANT: I ‘ Sannu Ram S/o Dasru Ram Halaml (In J‘iail)" , _ aged about 40 years resudent of ' ‘ (:hotanberha Chowkl Bandal P.S. 1 Pankhajur District Kanker (CG) Versus RESPONDENT: ' The State of Chhattlsgarh Through the , District Magistrate Kanker (CG) {Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) 0f Cr P C} Present _ Mr Shallendra Dubey, counsel for the appellant \ * Mr Arun Sao Govt Advocate forthe State/respondent r Drvrslon Bench:- ‘ ' e 'Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharm'a“and Hon’ble Mr; R.L. Jhanwar, JJ ORALJUDGMENT ' .. (16-9-2010)’ r . v- T.P. ShA'rm'a, J: - _ ‘ 1 Challenge m thrs appeal Is to the judgment of convrctron & order of %;ri sentence dated 6 8 2003 passed by the 4‘“ Addrtronal Sessrons Judge I: L F TCI Kanker In Sessmns Trral No 388/2002 whereby & whereunder " learned Additional Sessnons Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commrsston of culpable homrcrde amounting to murder of hrs father DasrulRam Halaml convrcted the appellant under Section 302 of the l P C nd sentenced hrm to undergo Imprisonment for lrfe & pay fne of :. l Rs 1 000/— In default of payment of fine to further undergo R l for SIX months / >2. ConVIctIon Is Impugned on the ground that Without any Iota of eVIdence V the trial Court has conVIcted & sentenced the appellant and thereby I ’commllted Illegallty 3., Case of the prosecution In brief Is that on the fateful day of 7 7 2002 at about 4 pm Dasru Ram Halaml (smce deceased) and his family \ members were celebrating the function of polo along With other Villagers I the apILellant was present In house to whom his father Dasru R \ am X ‘ alaml the deceased condemned saymg, you are able to perform the work but Instead of working m polo you are staying Insrde the house therebyvthe appeliant got annoyed and some altercation took place' " = between the appellant and his father. Thereafter, the appellant took out the axe and assaulted'from blunt part of the axe upon the head of his ‘father Dasru as of result Dasru became unconscious and the'appellant - fled away along wrth axe Wife of Dasru & mother of the appellant went ' . to Police Outpost Bande and lodged F l R Vide Ex P-14 On the basrs of r Ex P-14 numbered F l R was registered Vide Ex P 21 Chalte Bal (PW- _ 5) also took the Injured Dasru to hospital The doctor directed relatives ‘ of the injured Dasru to take the Imured to Ralpur for better treatment but they were not in a pOSition to take him to Raipur for better treatment on accOunt of poverty Lastly Dasru died Merg was recorded at Chowki ' Bande Vide Ex P-22 and on the baSis of Ex P-22 numbered merg Ex P- . . 23 was recorded Dasru was firstly examined by Dr D K Sinha (PW—1) ' Vide Ex P—2 and one lacerated wound over left temporal region of 1“ x 1/“ * r , I a was found After the death of Dasru after summoning the Witnesses Vide Ex P 16 inquest over the dead body of Dasru was prepared Vide‘ ' Ex P 17 Dead body was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre Bande Vide ExP 5 Dr D K Sinha (PW—1) conducted autopsy Vide ‘ ‘ Ex P 6 and found one lacerated wound over left temporal area brain matter was coming out frontal bone temporal bone, parietal bone & ocCipital bone were found fractured, and death was homiCidalin nature. The appellant was'taken into custody, he made discloSer statement 'of a axe Vide Ex P 19 and axe was recovered at the Instance of the appellant Vide Ex P 20 Axe was also examined by Dr D K Sinha (PW 1) Vide ' 1 Ex.P-8. Sealed clothes of Dasru were seized Vide Ex P 13 v a Bloodstained & plain sail were recovered from the spot Vide EXP—18. . v .' v spotimap was prepared vide Ex.P—24. ‘Bloodstained‘ clothes of the ' accused were seized vide Ex.P—25. Seized articles Were" sent for ' VchFmical examination vide Ex.P-26.' i‘ 4.‘ Statements of the.Witnesses were recorded under Section 161 ‘of the gr P.C.* After completion of‘investigation, charge sheet was filed before . ‘ 'the Co'urt‘of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur‘ who committed'the case to the Court of Sessions, Bastar frOm’where. learned A ‘ ‘ dditionai Sessions Judge received the Case on transfer fortrial. H t 7 5; In order to prove the gurlt of the appeHant the prosecution has examined as many as fourteen Witnesses The accused was exammed under. Section 313 of the CrPC In which he denied the Circumstances - appearmg against him pleaded Innocence and false Impllcatlon . 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties learned Addltlonal M . V SeSSIons Judge convrcted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned 7. We have heard learned counsel for the partres perused the Judgment ’ 5rmpugned and record of the tnal Court ‘ :' 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that thrs rs a case of culpable I homlcrde amounting to murder of father by hrs son the appellant As per ' the evrdence of Charte Bal (PW-5) mother of the appellant & wrfe of the V. deceased on account of some dispute all of a sudden the appellant has V § L caused one Injury The appellant has not caused Injury With Intent to ’ cause thg death of the deceased The deceased has not dled as a resultp H at; y ‘ of Injury, but has dred on account of farlure of treatment Therefore If the case of the prosecution Is admitted In Its face value even then the act of the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-l of a the IPC Learned counsel further submits that the appellant Is In custody smce 13-7 2002 for about 8 years and same would be sufficient sentence for the appellant In the present Circumstances of the case a 9. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the appeal and submits that the appellant has caused homICIdal death amounting to murder of his father Dasru ‘10 lnlorder to appreCIate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties we have exammed the eVIdence adduced on behalf of the prosecution 11 ln the present case homICIdal death of Dasru as a result of fatal Injury _ found over his head has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant otherWIse also same Is established by the eVIdence of Dr D K Slnha (PW-1) and autopsy report Ex P-6 which reveal that fatal Injury ' was found over the head of the deceased and death of the deceased i was homICIdal In nature 12 As regards complICIty of the appellant In the crime In question eVIdencev " of Chalte Bal (PW 5) mothel of the appellant & Wife of the deceased Is sutfCIent for drawmg Inference that the appellant has caused Injur to his father Dasru y (PW-5) and the F i R Iodged by her on the fateful day the appeHant was ‘ .present In his house he was not partICIpatIng In the polo function then he was condemned by his father Dasru (smce deceased) thatdesplte the ' " ,a‘Eppellantts 'able to work he ifs networking in polo on Whioh some ., altercation took plécébetween the appellant & the deceased whereupon V the appellant took’out axe and assaulted his father by blunt part of the axe on his head' basru’ became unconscious and finally retatives Of 3 Dasru were not In a posmon to take him to Raipur for better treatment and on account of InsuffICIent treatment Dasru died 14 in the present case the appellant was havmg axe but deliberately he _ v has caused injury by usmg blunt part of axe and not sharp part or blade , of the axe which shows that the appellant was cautious at the time of causmg injury The deceased has not died instantaneously, but he died ' on second day en account of failure of treatment l [[uv.“ my 15 ConSIdering these Circumstances it can be safely inferred that the ; appellant has not caused injury With intent to cause the death of his father, but has caused injury on sudden provocation on the spur of the H moment when he was provoked by his father Dasru Therefore H cdefinitely, the act of the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of l Section 304 Part-I of the I P C While conVicting the appellant the trial ‘LCourt has not conSidered the aforesaid aspect and thereby committed iliegality ' ' f r 16 For the foregomg reasons the appeal is partly allowed ConVIction of the " appellant under Section 302 of the l P C is altered to Section 304 Part- of the l P C The appellant is in custody smce 13 7 2002 thereby, he has completed more than eight years of jail sentence and same would be k suffCIent sentence under Section 304 Part—l of the l P C Therefore the' '~ appellant is hereby sentenced to the period already undergone by him .i e from 13-7-2002 to trll date He be released forthWith if not reqUIred R.L. Jhanwar V Judge If Lin any other case I v..— Sd/_ V TP Sharma Judge .Soma _