HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT 3ILASPUR IVISION BENC CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Criminal Aggeal No.592 of 1993 Loknath son 0f Bansingh, aged about 26 years, Labourer, resident of village 9 Teli-Marenga’, Police Station Gramin Thana Frezarpur, District Bastar I Aggellant. VERSUS Respondent The Stale of Madhya Pradesh Criminal A eal under section 374 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Present: None Shri for Akhil the appellant. Mishra, learned Deputy ’ Government ‘ Advocate, for the State. w (1s July, 2010) .The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Loknath stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 26.04.1993, passed by the First ns Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.1 1/89. at Additional Sessio D H 2) Appellant Loknath has been found guilty by the trial Court for the commission of murder of deceased Sukhdev by causing injuries on him by means of an axe in the evening of 23.05.1988. 3) The appellant’s conviction is founded on the eyewitness account of PW/1 Chamari Bai, widow of deceased Sukhdev, who categorically stated that the appellant caused two injuries on the right hand of her husband, deceased Sukhdev by means of an axe. 4) From the memo of appeal, we gather that the appellant has challenged his conviction mainly on the grounds that the sole testimony of PW/1 Chamari Bai is not reliable; deceased Sukhdev was not given any treatment immediately; and copy of the First Information Report was not sent to the concerned Magistrate. Para 2 of the memo of appeal further mentions one more ground that the injuries are on the hand; there is no injury on any vital part of the body; there was no intention to cause death and as such the r offence even if proved, will not be one of murder punishable under Section 302 of the lndian Penal Code. 5) On a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW/1 Chamari Bai, solitary eyewitness, we are satisfied that her presence at the time of the incident. is quite natural. Nothing could be elicited by the defense in her cross-examination which may render‘her evidence unworthy of credence. Her evidence is fully corroborated by her own First Information Report (Ex.P/1). The medical evidence of PW/7 Dr.KV Sharma also corroborates the eyewitness account of .PW/1 Chamari Bai as the two injuries found on the right hand of Y\ deceased Sukhdev, according to the doctor, could have been caused by means of a sharp edged weapon like axe. 6) Thus, we do not Find any'infurmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court that it was appeiiant Loknath who caused those two injuries on the right hand of deceased Sukhdev, which resulted in his death. We, therefore, affirm the finding recorded by the trial Court holding appellant Loknath guilty of causing those two injuries on the right hand of deceased Sukhdev by means of an axe which ultimately resulted in his death. 7) The next question which now crops up for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the above proved act of appellant Loknath in causing those two injuries on the right hand of deceased Sukhdev by means of an axe, which ultimately resulted in-his death would amount to the offence of ‘murder’ punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as has been held by the trial Court or it would amount to some lesser offence. 8) ln the evidence of PWlf Chamari Bai, it has come that her husband Sukhdev and appellant Loknath were cousin brothers. There is not even an iota of evidence about any prior ill-witl between deceased Sukhdev and appellant Loknath. From the ' prosecution case itself, it is apparent that the immediate cause for the unfortunate assault on deceased Sukhdev at the hands of appellant Loknath was a wordy ’quarrel in the evening between deceased Sukhdev and the wife and mother of appellant Loknath in ‘regard to taking of water from~the tube-well. Though the appellant \Y was armed with a heavy sharp weapon, axe, no attempt was made by him to cause any injury on the vital parts of the body i.e. head; chest or abdomer’t. Both the external injuries found on deceased Sukhdev were on his right hand. It was unfortunate that the medical help could not be provided to the deceased in time and on account of the excessive bleeding from the two extemal tnjuties on his right hand, he died next morning. 9) On a cumulative consideration of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we find it difficult to hold with certainty that appellant Loknath while causing those two injuries on the right hand of deceased Sukhdev by means of an axe, which ultimately r resulted in his death, had intended to cause his death. 10) In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the above proved act of appellant Loknath would not amount to the offence of murder punishable under Section 802 of the Indian Penal Code. 11) Nevertheless, appellant Loknath cannot escape from his liability altogether. The above proved act of appellant Loknath in causing those two injuries on the right hand of deceased Sukhdev by means of an axe which ultimately resulted in his death next day would certainly amount to the offence of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’ and in the facts and circumstances of the present case would be punishable under Section 304 part it of the lndian Penal Code. l l l l l l l l l J 12) As for the sentence, we gather from the record that appellant Loknath vyas sent to jail after his conviction by the trial Court on 26.04.1993 and was reieased on bail in compliance of this Court's order dated 13.1 1 .1998 on 26.1 1 .1998. As such, appellant Loknath has already remained in jail for a period of about 5 years and 7 months. In our considered opinion, sentence of 5 years and 7 months already undergone by appellant Loknath would be sufficient punishment for the offence proved against him and would meet the ends of justice. 13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal tiled by appellant Loknath against his conviction and sentence is allowed in part. His conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the trial Court are hereby set aside. instead, he is convicted under Section 304 part ll of the lndian Penal Code and is sentenced to the period already undergone by him which in the present case is 5 years and 7 months. 14) Appellant Loknath is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand $9 subbu discharged. " I ‘ Sdl- 4 .sa/a Sunil. Kumar Sinha Chief Justice * Judge Judge