HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Singie Bench = Hon”ble Mr. Justice Prifinker Diwaker Criminai Appeal No. 13.11 .af i994 APPELLANTS Prifhvi Singh aims Munm Aghariyq and aTher-s. Versus RESPONDENT 5mm of Madhya Pradesh Shri H.S. Pafel, counsel for The appeiianfs. ‘ Shri Vivek Shawna, P.L. for the $1'afe/r'espondenf. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2! OF THE CODE OF CEEHINAL PEOCEDURE J U D G M E N T (06.67.20i6) Presen‘r appea£ arises ouf of fhe impugned judgment and order dated 26.8.1994 passed by First Addi1’ional Sessions Judge, Rgigorh in Sessions Trio! No. 233/1993 whereby conyicfing The accused/appellants under Secfion 304 (Portr- I)/34 of fhe Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them To undergo rigorous imprisonmen’r for fwo years wh‘h fine of Rs.1000, in defauif of payment of fine To further undergo rigorous imprisonmem‘ for six monfhs. ;f 2. Brief facts of The case are fhaf on 27,74993 F.I.R. (EXP-1) was iodged‘by Baigaram @ Lingraj (PW—4), son of deceased Samara aileging that on that day at about 9.00 am on account of land dispute, the accused/appellant No. 1 Prithvi Singh @ Muntu Aghariya entered his field and had prevented ’ deceased Samaru from pioughing the fieid. It is. alleged that thereafter the accused/appeiiant Not 1 went hack t9 his house and then again came back with his three sons i.e, appellant Not 2 Laleshwar, appeilant No.3 Madan Aghariya and Lalit (deceased): 1t is furthera aheged that, thereafter, I accused/appellanf Na. 1 assauh'ed him wifh The help of spade. and, Thereaffer Lalif assauhed deceased Samaru, as a resuH of which, Samqru fell down on The field and, thereafter all ’rhe accused persons have assaulted him and Shaukilal. After invesfigafion, The challcm was filed by the pclice an 21.8.1993 against all fhe accused persons far the effence under Sections 302, 323 read wiih Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. /\ 3. Sojas t0 hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its cases Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charge levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case‘ 4. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/appellants of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 d: 324/34 ‘of the Indian Penal Code but has convicted them for-the offence under Section 304 (part—I)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence this appeal. 5. It is to be noted hear that on the report of Baigaram @ Lingraj (PW.4), the present case was initiated against the accused/appellants and as in the same incident Lalit, son of the appellant No. 1 and the brother of- the appellants No. 2 d 3 had expired, counter case was also registered against gaigamm C“? y a ,L Lingraj (PWA) d Shaukilal for the offence under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, vide judgment and order dated 26.8.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 234/1993, Baigaram @ Lingraj (PW-4) d: V Shaukilal have been acquitted by the court below. 7 o i “” 6. Counsel for Thg appellants submits That eye witnesses namely Bhagim‘rhi (PW-1), Ugmsen (PW-3), Baigamm @ Lingmj (PW-4) and Shaukiia! (PW-5) are inconsistent and, fhereforee They canno‘r be relied for canvic‘ring The accUsed/appellanfs. While referring The s‘ra‘remenfs 0f These witnesses ii has been argued by counsel for ‘rhe appellani's that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of theses witnesse and, therefore, they have to be ignoed Completely. 7. On the other hand, consel for the State sports the impugned judgment and submits that al the eye witneses have categorically deposed against th appellants and minor contradictions or omissions in the statement of these / witnesses have to be gnored. i 8. I have heard counel for the parties at lenth and perused the material avaable on reeord inclding judgnt impgned. u 9. Bhagirai(W-1) in his cour statement has stated that onthe dat of incident he knows oth the parties as th are resing in is village itself. He has staed that th accused/appellant No. 1 Prithvi Singh had sold l of his land to deceased amaru and on the date of incident when decease Samaru had gone to his field along with Ugrasen, Sunderlal‘ 5i Sahettar and when he was ploughing his field, in the adjacent field accused/appellant No. 1 Prithvi Singh and his wife were busy in weeding in their field. He has furtherjstated that the accusedlappellant No. 1 Prithvi came to the‘decegsed by saying that he is going to lodge the report against him then it was replied by Samaru that yes he can go and iodge the report and ‘thereafter the accused/appellant No. 1 came along with his 3 s r u up l s e s g il u me thP t e b ey di h t e haf S d sans .i.e. appellant Na. Z Laleshwar', appellant No.3 Madan Aghar'lya and Lalil (deceased) He has alsa slated thm‘ Thereafter free fighTlng slurred between both the parties and deceased Samara gave a blow to Lalit (deceased) and thereafter, accused/appellants who were carrying spade and club, have assaulted Samaru (deceased) and also assaulted to Baigaram @ hingraj (PW-4) at Shaukllal. He has stated that the deceased was beaten to the extent where he fell down on the spot itself and thinking that he has died, accused/appellants have left the place. In his cross-examination this witness appears to be firm and has not stated any such thing which may help the accused/appellant. Kalia (PW-2) — another son of the deceased Samaru had reached on the spot after the incident and has not seen the actual occurrence. Ugrasen (PW- 3) another independent witness of the case, who was ploughing lthe’filed along with the deceased has stated that when the deceased Samara was ploughing his field along with. him and, other persons, accused/appellant No. 1 Prithivi Singh came. there and has told the deceased that he is going to lodge the report and, thereafter he came along with his three sons and then the deceased was done to death by the accused persons He has stated that deceased Samaru gave a blow of battle axe to Lalit, as a result of which Lalit died’and thereafter, all the accused persons have assaulted deceased Samara and other persons. Baigaram @ Lingraj (PW-4) - son of the deceased and lodger of the F.I.R. has also stated that on the date of incident, accused/appellants have assaulted him and his father and all were carrying armsin their hands. Shaukilal (PW-5) - son of the deceased Samara and another eye witness to the ‘ incident has also supported the prosecution case by saying that ‘ when he reached on The spcf, Lali'r was already lying on fhe field ‘ond his father deceased Samaru Wes being assaulted by The accused persons and when he Tried To infervene, he iao was assaulted by The accused/appellan’r No. Z Laleshwan Chih‘asen (PW—6) is the wiiness of inquest and seizure and has supporte‘él The prosecu‘tian case. John 6eorge (PW-9) is the Revenue Inspector had made fhe measurement of The field. Dr. Rakesh Verma (PW-10) conducted The posT morTem of The deceased and has giVen his report Ex.P-20 has sTaTed ThaT The deceased died on accounT of number of injuries susTained by him and This wiTness has also examined Baigaram @ Lingraj (PW-4) and Shaukilal (PW—5) and has given his reporT Ex.P—21 and P—ZZ. 3.5. Thakur (PW-14) - InvesTigaTing Officer has supporTed The prosecuTion case. 10: (The sTaTemenTs of The eye wiTnesses namely BhagiraThi (PW-1), Ugrasen (PW-3), Baigaram‘ @ Lingraj (PW%) and Shaukilal (PW—5) makes iT very clear ThaT on The daTe of incidenT, when The deceased was ploughing his field along WiTh BhagiraThi (PW 1) <3; Ugrasen (Pw¥3i accused/appellanT No. 1. PriThVi Singh reached There and had Told him ThaT he is goino To lodge The reporT and ThereafTer all The Three appellanTs and The deceased LalIT wenT To The field of The deceased and There deceased Samaru caused mJury To LahT resulTmg his deaTh and The accused persons have bruTally assaulTed The deceased Samaru, resulTing his deaTh. Though There are some conTradicTions in The sTaTemenT of The wiTnesses buT Those conTradicTlons dre noT very maTerial and have To be compleTely ignored when all of Them h have categorically stated that accused/appeitants have assaulted the deceased and has caused his death. 14. Having come across the entire pros and cons of the matter the only conclusion sJitable for the offenders like‘ ppellants herein is the apathy not sympathy. Accordingly, this Court finds nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and to blow a life to the appeal. Appeal being lifeless is dismissed. ll Pritinker Diwaker V Judge a f' Sd/- a