HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 1993 Sammal Singh Vs. State of’Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT For consideration sal- § Sunil. Kumar Sinha ' Judge ' / Post for Judgment‘: IDS/201 O Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA \ Judge \ M ‘gw L/ HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA L\ l J . \‘gf:§'“ § 3d]. Chief Justice Judge ,l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 1993 Sammal Singh S/o Shriram, Caster Gond, Aged 20 years, R/o Bittakola, 'Dewargaon, P.S. Gorela, District Bilaspur (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh) Versus APPELLANT RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Through P.S. Gorela, District Biiaspur (MP) (Now Chhattisgarh) (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Appearance: ‘ Mrs’. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate for the appeiiant. Mr. Akhii Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT ( 4.08.2010) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant Sammal Singh stands convicted u/s 302 IPC rmrl sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Second Additloni-ll Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 152/91 on 824.1993, (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- ‘ Deceased— Braspatiya Bai, an old lady aged about 60 yearn, was issueless. She had kept the appellant to look after Imr ’ agricultural work. On 9.10.90 at about 6.00 a.m., deceased . .Braspatiya Bai and Jaimat Bai»(PW—3) were threshing the paddy by \ 2 Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 1993 rammer. The allegations arerthat the appellant came there with a lathi and gave first assault on her head. This was witnessed by Jaimat Bai (PW-3), who immediately rushed to her house to mil other persons. When they returned, they saw that the deceiglm-Mil has died. The further case of the prosecution is that when Hm appeilant was running away from the place of occurrence. he mnl Manmati Bai (PW—4) and made extra-judicial confession before hen. :7»x The case of the prosecution was based on the eye—witnemi-i account of Jaimat Bai (PW-3) and extra—judicial confession mud” by the appellant before Manmati (PW-4). The learned Sesslonm Judge relied on the testimonies of Jaimat Bai (PW—3) and Mannmli Bai (PW-4) and convicted & sentenced the appellant an aforementioned. (3) Mrs. Ranjana Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf ol ll‘m appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death to the deceased. Sim argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, an offence u/ii 302 IPC would not be made out and the appellant would be liable for punishment under some lesser Section, preferably Part-II of Section 21504 IPC. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Akhil Mishra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. a (6) To appreciate the arguments advanced by’learned counsel for llin appellant, let us see what injuries the deceased has sustained on 9.10.90. Dr. R.C. Mishra (PW-1) conducted the post-mortem examination 3 Criminal Apgeal No. 541 of 1993 of the deceased on 10.10.90. He found that the deceased was a Iaclv g aged about 60 years having following external injuries:— (i) ' Abrasion 4 x 3 cm. on the upper portion of right side oi Hm t neck; (ii) Lacerated wound 10 x 4 x 3 cm on the left side of the 1mm. Margins were irreguiar Teeth In Jaws on the left Side wow absent There was a fracture of left maxrHa which hm) extended to the left eye, (iii) Lacerated wound- 1/2 x 3 x 2 cm. over middle of chin. Marginu were irreguiar and there were many fractures on the jaws, (iv) Contusion 12 x 1O cm. on the left side of the back of thn skull. There was depressed fracture of occipital bone & (v) Contusion 6 x 4 cm. on supra clevicular region having reddish colour. There were multiple fractures in manclihlu/ bone. The’ brain membrane was congested and there was haemorrhage in brain tissue. Pleura, wind pipe, both lungs and heart membrane were congested. The Doctor opined that the death was caused on account of-coma duo lo head injury and it was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report hmi been proved as Ex.-P/1. We note that the lathi, which was 'used by tho appellant, was of about 118 om. having a diameter of 12 cm at one and and 9 cm) on the other end. The Autopsy Surgeon has also examined Ihiu article and has opined that the injuries could be cahsed to the deceaiwl .by the said article. s. (7) Jaimat Bai (PW-3) deposed that on the fateful day, she wxam threshing the paddy by ra‘mmer along with the deceased. The appellant, all of alsudden, came there with a lathi and assaulted‘the deceased on her face. As soon as the appellant gave first blow, she became frightened and ran away to call the neighbours. Firstly she told Manmati Bai (PW-“4). 4 Criminal Appeal N0. 541 of 1993 Manmati Bai immediately came there and saw the deceased. Sarparmh and other persons also came there to see the deceased. Blood wae coming out from the face of the deceased. She was cross-examined IJv the defence; but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance on which either her testimony may be doubted or it can Itm said that she was falsely implicating the appellant for committing murdur of the deceased. Mrs. Ranjana Jaiswal argued that Jaimat Bai (F’VVEI) deposed about the single blow on the head of the deceased bul them were 5 injuries, therefore, her evidence appears to be suspicious. We do not find any force in this argument. Jaimat Bai deposed that after seeing that the appellant gaveifirst blow on the head of the deceased, she ran away to call the neighbours and when they returned back, they saw lliiil the deceased had received many injuries and the appellant had fled away from the place of occurrence. Her conduct was quite natural as she ltill the place of occurrence just after the first blow and when immeditmaily they returned, they saw many injuries on the body of the deceased and the appellant had also gone away. There was hardly any reason Io disbelieve the testimony of this witness. She was a natural witness i-ind she deposed about the incident in very natural manner. (8) Evidence of Jaimat Bai (PW-3) was corroborated by the evidmicu of Manmati Bai (PW—4), who saw that the appellant was running in gull He was carrying a danda. When she asked him, he stated that he had assaulted the deceased because she was calling him as thief. Nothing , x . ’ has been brought in her cross-examination also.,Therefore, there‘wtm hardly any doubt about the incident and it was proved on record that llm \ . \ 5 Criminal Apgal N0. 541 of 1993 appellant assaulted the deceased with Iathi who received above li mJurIes. (9) Mrs. Jaiswal has argued for Section 304 Part-ll IPC. (10) Section 304 IPC draws a distinction between the penalty to he) inflicted in cases, where, an intention to kill being present, the act would have amounted to murder, but for its having fallen witlhin one oi' the Exceptions in Section 300, and cases in which the crime is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, that means, where there is knowledgn ' that death will be a likely result, but the intention to cause death, or bodllv injury likely to cause death, is absent. The first part of Section 304 appliigm where there is intention, whereas the second part applies where there it; ‘ knowledge but the important thing is that before holding the accutioil guilty under any part of Section 304, it has to be observed that: a cloieilli must have been caused by him under any of the circumstarmez; mentioned in the five Exceptions to Section 300, which include (loath caused while deprived of power of self-control under grave and sudden provocation, while exercising in good faith the right of private defence ol person or property, and in a sudden fight in the heat of passion withoul premeditation. Knowledge of consequences which may result in doing an act is quite different than the intention which denotes that a particular consequence should ensure. For attracting the former part of Section V 304, an element of intention is a factor, whereas for attracting the lzitor " part, an element of knowledge is a factor. In the present case the manner in which the appellant assaulted the deceased and number of blowri which he dealt with on the vital parts of the body of the deceased and 111m / ‘ 6 Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 1993 danda which he used to cause such blows which he brought with him, would show that he had an intention to cause death of the deceased and his act would be punishable u/s 302 IPC and his such act would never fall under any of the Exceptions. (11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not nnd any substance in the appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (12) The abpellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender immediately to serve the remaining sentence awarded to him. \. \ @\ l Sta/n l \1 I ' I sd/_ i Sunil-Kumar Chief Jusn'ce W“ Judge E Judge