f i/ER/ a1 k; N .., HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Ggpta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, 4.e Criminal'Appeal No. 816 of 1992 Mantosh Vs. / The State o Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) ‘ . JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- $unit Kumar Sinha Judge *‘*o"/U5/4U'l 0 \\ , _/ " '1 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA jW': .,..,. Sd/- Chief Justice Post for Judgment : -l09/2010 Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge f l /~ ? i€:i£ii}ga’%% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gugta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Aggeal No. 816 of 1992 Mantosh son of Jin‘a Sweeper, aged about 25 years, resident of_lndira Colony, Potiya Road, P.S. Durg, District- Durg (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh) APPELLANT Versus _The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) V» RESPONDENT . LCriminal Aggeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) -- AQQearance: None for the appeHant. Mr. J.A. Lohani, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (0?.092010) Foltowing judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the First Additional riai No. 356/91 on 18““ of June, 0 (1) Appeliant— Mantosh stands convicted u/s 302 Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions T 1992.. (2) The facts, briefly stated,are as under:'— :3 Three accused persons, namely Mantosh (present \\appellant), Santosh and Jina, were prosecuted u/s 302/34 IPC’ \\\_ / % " 2 Criminal Appeal N0. 816 of 1992 for commission of murder of deceased- Ramkrishna. Accused- Santosh & Mantosh are real brother and accused—Jina is their father. Ramkrishna waS'their neighbour. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.8.91 at about 11.30 p.m.f a quarrel begun between‘Ramkrishna and the accused persons in front of house Of the accused persons. During the quarrel, ‘appellant— Mantosh, went inside his house, came with a knife and gave a knife blow on the left thigh of the deceased. The deceased was immediately taken to the hospital and was examined and treated by Dr. K.K. Mishra (PW-6), who found “Che stab wound of the size of 1.5 inch x 1 inch x muscle deep on his left thigh. The injury report is EX..-P/8. The deceased wa‘s admitted in the hospital, who died at about 4.45 a.m. on 2.8.91. The ‘post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. S.P. Saxena (PW-3), who prepared his report'Ex.—P/1. He found that on account of the single stab wound caused on the left thigh of the deceased, his femoral blood vessels were completely cut. The cause of death was haemorrhage on account of the above injury sustained by the deceased. The incident was witnessed by three eye-witnesses namely Jalandhar (PW—1), Umesh (PW—2) & Suresh Kumar (PW-9 — brother of the deceased). (3) Though charges were framed u/s 302/34 IPC against all the accused persons, but the learned Sessions Judge held that appellant— Mantosh alone was responsible for the said injury caused to the deceased. Therefore, the other two accused persons were acguitted of the charges ‘ff‘a‘med against them. However, appellant— Mamosh was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. / , ‘ ‘ 3 I, j / 4 Criminal Aggeal No. 816 of 1992 the quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased was going on since half an hour. Both were abusing each other. The accused persons and the deceased both were in drunken condition; Both were abusing each other by sister & mother. in a Court question asked in Para-4 of his cross-examination, he very clearly admitted that Mantosh gave only single knife blow on the thigh of the deceased, whereas, he would'have assaulted the deceased on his che‘st,,if he would have liked to do so. t (9) Umesh (PW-2.) also deposed that a quarrel was going on in front of the house of accused persons. Deceased-Ramkrishna and the accused persons were abusing each other by mother & sister. “During the quarrel, Mantosh went inside his house and brought a knife and caused a knife blow on the thigh of the deceased. l (10) Suresh Kumar (PW-9) is the real brother of the deceased. According to his version, he heard commotion at about 11.00 p.m. He reached to the place of occurrence and saw that his brother Ramkrishna was quarreling with accused persons. When he tried to intervene, Mantosh went inside the house and brought a knife and caused a knife injury to his brother. He further added that they were quarreling on account of suspicion of illicit relations of his brother with» the wife of co-accused Santosh. in Para-5 of his cross examination, he admitted that it. was a sudden quarrel between them. ?f» 9 5 Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 1992 (11) The learned Sessions Judge has discussed about the applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC in this matter,and has held‘ that the second requirement of Exception 4 was not present because deceased—R‘amkrishna was unarmed at the time of the d d c incient an it was a case of assaulting the deceased in a ruel ’ / i ar. We are uble to ccept the said fin recorded by th mnne na a d e n s T ok cepn 4 o sn 0 leared Session Judge. o inve Extio t ectio 30, four rqireents must be satisfied, namely (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) eum thre edaton; don in eat of t e was no premiti (iii) the act was e a h péf e nt e n e adnt asion and (iv)‘th assaila had not takn ay ‘undu vaage or td in a cruel maner. In the present case, ertal it ws ace n ciny a a e fig s ta d suddn ht and there wa no preparation or premedition an after aut alf an hou f quarrel appellnt went inside th bo h r o the a e ouse nd ca with the kn an assulted the deceased by h a me ife d a gvig a single blow o his high,whch appears t be heat of in n ti o in pssi S e ea a gh, a h di aon. ince h dlt with single blow on the thi nd e d not aus subsequent bws hich akes its clear that h not Ce lo w m e had taen y undue advntag or acted in a cruel nianner. Hd there k an ae a been an intention of the appellant to cause death of the deceased, he would have chosen the vital part of the body like chest etc. and would have given repeated blows to the deceased because as per evidence of eye-witnesses after the said knife blow, the deceased fell down and there was no resistance from the side of the deceased to cause subsequent blow by the appellant which he did not do. l i i l i l a: