HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVIS!ON BENCH CORAM: HOWELE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Criminal Revision No. 192 of 2004 Anjana Bai Manade, aged about 34 years, widow of Eake Hemraj Manade, resident of Bajrang Nagar, Aamapara, Raipur (CG) VERSUS Non-applicants 1. State of Chhattisgarh Thruugh The PoHce Station Go! Bazar, Raipur 2. Sanjay alias Monty Aged about 2t years, Son of Shri C'nhabilal Kahoje, Resident of >. ”Bajrang Nagar, Aamapara, " 'DVistt. Raipur {Chhattisgarm CRtMtNAL REVESION UNDER SECTEON 397 READ WITH $ECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRlMiNAL PROCEDURE Annlicant Present : Shri Pawan Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhit Agrawai, Panet tawyer for the State/ respondent No.1. ORDER (17th December, 2609) l The following order f the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on admission. 2) The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2003, passed in Sessions Trial No.78/2003, whereby respondent / accused Sanjay @ Monty o k) though was convicted under Section 323 of the IPC, was acquitted of the charge undei Section 302 of the IPC. 3) Police Goibazar, District Raipur after compietion'of the investigation of the case registered on the report of Naresh charge-sheeted respondent/accused Sanjay @ Monty and his co-accused Rajesh for ithe alleged commis‘sion of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC on the accusation of their having committed murder of deceased Hemraj in the night of 27.10.2002. 4) Both the accused persons namely Rajesh and Sanjay @ Monty abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the chargewframed by the trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 5) At the trial, charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused persons was sought to be proved on the evidence of PW-1 NK Tripathi, PW—2 Dr Ullas Gonnade, PW—3 Bhaudas Kanouje, PW—4 Mano} Kumar Bhondekar, PW-5 Vinod Khare, PW—S Dr S Bose, PW-7 Kaushal Kishore Shukla, PW-8 Shekhar Jagne, PW—Q Anjana Bai Mannade, PW—10 Naresh, PW- 11 Stlresh Turakne and PW—12 Ramakant Sharma. 6) The trial Court on a thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution at the trail found that the act of accused Rajesh in causing fatal injuries on deceased Hemraj though amounted to offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, but the act of accused Sanjay @ Monty was punishable under Section 323 of the IPC only. The trial éourt, therefore, convicted accused ?im‘m . Rajesh under Section 302 of the IPC with sentences of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/—, whereas accused Sanjay @ Monty was convicted under Section 323 of the tPC with RI for one year vide impugned judgment dated 27.08.2003. ?) Shri Pawan Kesharwani, teamed oounsei for the petitioner vehementiy argued that’the triai Court has erred in acquitting respondent / accused Sanjay @ Monty of the charge under Section 302 f the IPC. o 8) Accused Rajeeh, who was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC had filed an appeal against his conviction which came to be registered as Criminal Appeal No.1013/2003. The appeal of accused Rajesh was finally decided yid’eH‘judgment dated 07.5.2008 and his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was set aside and instead he was ccnvicted under Section 304 part ll of the IPC and was sentenced to RI for 10 years. 9) The trial Court in para 23 of the impugned judgment taking note of the fact that even according to the prosecution case, accused Sanjay @ Monty assaulted the deceased with hands and fists only, found that his above act would not be punishable under Stion 302 of the IPC. The trial Court, therefore, convicted him ec under Section 323 of the IPC while acquitting him of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the tPC. 10) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner; the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent / accused Sanjay @ Monty of the charge under Section 302 read with"Section 34 of the IPC; the nature of , 7 .._. _i. su—av 0 the overt act proved against respondent / accused Sanjay @ Monty, we do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court leading to acquittal of respondent accused Sanjay @ Monty of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 11) The revision petition filed by the petitioner / complainant against the acquittal of respondent / accused Sanjay @ Monty of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. “’ Sdl ‘ V sw— i Sunil Kumar Sinha CHIEF JUSTICE Judge