..•^».<-",, HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: Coram: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA & HON'BLE MR.R.N.CHANDRAKAR, JJ. Ui^ Appellant (InJail) Respondent Criminal Appeal No.598 of 2006 Pradeep Kumar, S/o. Jaitram Aged about 24 years, Occupation-Labour, R/o. Near Railway Crossing, Kharwat, P.S. Charcha, Distt.Korea (C.G.) •i' Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through: P.S. Baikunthpur Distt.Korea (C.G.) (CRMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE Cr.P.C.) Mr.D.N.Prajapati, counsel forthe appellant. Mr.J.A.Lohani, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent. JUDGMENT <th (Passedon 30"' November, 2011) T.P.Sharma, J.:- 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 14.7.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, in Sessions Trial No.236/05, whereby & whereunder the Additiona) Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Ku.Parvati, aged about 7years convicted him under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for six months. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence and the fact that the appellant was mad at the time of commission of offence by convicting and sentencing the appellant the trial Court has committed illegality. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on 20.4.2005 at about 11 p.m. the appellant took inside the room to unfortunate deceased Ku.Parvati, aged about 7 years and assaulted by sword and caused her instantaneous •|eui jo^ je^sueji uo eseo aq} peAieoej seif jnd4iun>|ieg 'eBpnr syoisseg |euoi)!ppv SM} 9JSi<M LUOJJ '(jndB^iquiv) efn6jns 'suoisses jo ijnoo eqt 01 sseo 941 peyiLULUoo ujni ui oqM 'jndyiun^ieg '8)BJtS!6e|/\| lepipnr jaiiio jo pnoo aqi ui p8|y SEM ieeL|s e6je40 'uoiiBBitseAui p uoi}9|dLuoo jeye pue (.epoo, )joqs jo^) e^gi. 'gjnpooojd leuiLUUQ jo epOQ 3W i° 191. uoiioes jepun p8pjooaj ejsM SSSSSUIIM aq} ^o stueujeieis 't? '£Z/d'x3sp'A psujjyuoo SEMiueiisdde squo seqiop pue PJOMS J9AO pooiq ueuny peouasajd pue }S!6o|ojes 01 iussaj9M saioipe pazieg 'ZZ/d"x3 3P!A PSUJJIJUOO SBM PJOMS pue psseeosp eqi p sayiop uo pooiq jo eouesejd pue 9|./d'x3 epiAuoiteuiLuexs [eoiLusqo jo; lues ajem seioiije pezies 'lZ/d'x3 3P!A deai }ods psjedejd uemied 'OZ/d'x3 8P!A p8J31si6ej SBM "y'l'j usqLunN "6l,/d"x3 3P!A psziss ejsM peseeoap sqiio seyioio "Zl./d'xg spiA jeoiyo BuitBBiiseAui Aq pejedejd SBM dELU }OdS 'Zl/d'Xg SPIA P91S9JJB SBM pSSnOOB 9L|1 '01-/d'X3 SP'A )ue||8dde 8L)} IUQJJ peziss 8J8M pooiq IKIM peuieis tuied pue iJiqg '6/d'x3 apjA }UE||9ddB jo souetsui aqi IB p8j8A009j sem saies pue 9/d'xg epiA exe ^o iu9iua)Bts ejnsopsip epeiu aq 'Apoisno otui ue^e} SEM pasnoov '9/d'x3 8P!A pszjss sem LUOOJ aqi jo ^30\ 'uoiieBiissAui ^o esjnoo OLji 6uuna •ejn}eu ui iBpioituoq sem i<ieep pue >|ooqs SBM qiesp 10 ssneo "„% x „% x ,,y^ 10 B8| MBu J9AO punoM pesioui pue „% x ..y^ x ,,z p EIIXB ysi J9AO punoM pesioui 'BQ\ yei J8AO deep euoq x,,|. x ,,|. x „% g jo punoM pesioui 'ino punoj ej9M sueBjo |euj9iui ',,^ \, x ,,z x ,,6 p ^oeu J9AO Ajnfui psspui puno^ pue gi./d'xg apiA Asdoine pepnpuoo (|.l-Md) ELUjeys jemqs9iueyja ejsqM 'jndqiun^ieg '?ij}uao L|i|ee[-| AiiunaiLuoo 0} Asdoine joj \UQS SBM ^poq peea •l.l./d'xg epiA iods eqi LUOJJ pojSAoasj ej9M |ios uie|d pue peuieispooig "fr/d'xg epiA peseeoap aq) jo Apoq eq) J9AO isanbui pajedejd £/d'x3 spiA sssseuiiM 04) OuiuouiLuns jeye pue 83U8Jjn030 t0 9U90S JOJ U3| jeoiyo Bu!ie6!iS9Au| 'z/d'xg apiA papjooaj SBM 'yrd '[./d'xa spiA 'a'rd 841 p86p0| pUB UOJ1B1S 931|0d 84} 01 }U9M pue episui LUOJ^ joop 94} pssop weBe ueqi 'pooiq yfiM peuieis luooj 94} episui BuiA| SBM !ie/ued'n»jo Apoq pesp 'PJOMS OUIAELJ SBM aq 9011} }ei\\ ie 'joop aq} pauedo iue||sdde eqi A|}se| 'joop eqi p9)|oou)| )ue||sdde SL|I jo s|oun (l.-Md) JELun>|Aefv 'episino LUOJJ joop 94) pesop OS|B 9|-| 'qteep I \ •ajnieu ui leppiLuoq SBM pesesosp squo qieap »eqigi./j'xg Ijodej Asdoine pue (l.l.-Md) eujjeqs JBMqseLueyja ^o aouepiAS 941 Aq peqsiiqe^sa si \\ 'esi/vusqio U9A9 'tueiiedde eq} jo.jieqeq uo peindsip Alieiiueisqns ueeq )ou sey !iEAJEd'n» psseeosp p Apoq eqi JSAO puno^ saunfui \e}e^ ^o }|nsaj e se qteep lepioiLuoq 'eseo ^uesejd eqi u| • [. i. •uoiinossojdsiiip^eqeq uo paonppe eouspiAS SL|I pauiLuexe 9Aeq 9M 'seiijed eqi jo jieiieq uo peoueApe s)U9ainBje eqt eiepejdde 0} jepjo uroi. •pesBSoep eqi p jepjnui 01 6ujiunoaie qieep jEpioiLuoq pesneo seq iue||edde 941 teqi sousja.tui Ouimejp jo^ luepiyns si uoiinoesojd equo lieqsq uo peonppe aouapiAa (eqi p9n6je jsqyn^ |asunoo psujeei •pv souapiAg a^t ^o SOI. uoipes JSpun psjinbsj se eoua^sp 94} Aq peAojd ueaq }QU SBI^ uoiideoxe '9SIMJ9LDO USAg -83U8yO p UOISSIULUOO JO 91U11 8qi 1E ||| A||E}U3LU JO 9UBSUI }OU SBM lUB||8dde eqi ieqi penBje pue |eadde syi pesoddo luspuodsaj/eiEts 341 Jo^ jeAMB-f |9ued psujeei 'puei| jeqto 341 UQ •6 •}OV 93U9PIA3 94} p ^9 uoipes japun 9|qe|ieAe uoiideoxe pBLUiep seq pue BUOJM pue iqBu '? peq pue pooB inoqe e6p9|Mou>| OuiAeq }ou SBM eq 'euesui SEM lueiiadde eqi 'eousyo ^o UOISSILULUOO jo 9011} eqt }B )Bq} pej eqi eAojd 0} luaioiyns si uoiinossojd SL|}JO ^eiieq uo poonppe aouapiAe \ew psnBje A|iu3LU9i<aA }ue||9ddB eqt jcy issunoo psujes-] •e •ynoo \eu} eqiio pjooej pue psuBndLui iueu6pnf aqi pesnjsd 'ssiped eqi jo^ lestjnoo psujesi pjeay 9Aeq e/v\ •z 'pauoiiueLuejoje se }ue||8dde 341 peous^ues '§ pepiAuoo jndqtun^ieg '86pnr suoisseg leuoitippv p9ujB3| 'ssiyed eqi 0} euueeq jo Aliun}joddo 6uipiAOjd jeyv '9 •uoi)S8nb ui 3LUUO 941 ui uoiteoiidLui ss|e^ pue eoueoouui pspe8|d pue uiq tsuiB6B Buuesdde ssoueisujnojp 94} psiusp eq qoiqw ui '9p03 sqi ^o £|.euoipas jspun pepjoosj SEM lueiiedde/pesnooe eqi p iu8iu9)ei3 •sssseuijm ueeiqeie se AUELU se pauiiuexe SEL| uoiinoesojd eq^ '}ue||9dde/p9snooB eqi jo t|in6 sqt aAojd 0} jepjo u| •s .rb 12.As regards the complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction is substantially based on the evidence of Vishun Ram (PW-2) and Sukhwanti Bai (PW-9), father and mother of the deceased. As per evidence of Vishun Ram (PW-2) and Sukhwanti Bai (PW-9), their daughter was not present in the house, she had gone to the house of room of the appellant for playing. Being searched, roqm of the appellant was found closed from inside, when Dinesh knocked the door, then appellant opened the door, his clothes were stained with blood and dead body of Parvati was found inside the room. ,t 13.These evidences are sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant and the deceased w.ere present inside the room where the deceased died as a result of-fatal injuries. The appellant has not offered any explanation as to why the dead body was found in his room. In absence of any explanation, only presumption would be possible that only the appellant has caused homicidal death ofthe deceased. 14.As regards the question of motive, the prosecution has not proved the motive of the offence. As per evidence of Ajay Kumar (PW-1), Vishun Ram (PW-2), Kawal Sai (PW-4), Dayashankar (PW-5), Sunil Kumar (PW-6) and Sukhwanti Bai (PW-9), the appellant was not mentally sound, even he was chained, but this fact has not been supported by investigating officer. Record of the trial Couri: reveals that jail authorities have sent the gppellant to medical college for treatment and he was under treatment for mental disease. This evidence is not sufficient to prove that the appellant was insane, but is sufficient to prove the fact that the appellant was not a man of sound mind. Even otherwise, there was no motive for causing such homicidal death. 15.Considering the aforesaid fact that the appellant wasnot a man of sound mind, it is difficult to hold that the appellant has caused homicidal death of the deceased with intent to cause her death. Act attributed to the present appellant squarely falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part-1 of thel.P.C. 16.While convicting the sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid circumstances and thereby committed illegality. 17.Forthe foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction ofthe appellant under Section 302 ofthe I.P.C. is hereby altered to Section 304 Part-1 of the I.P.C. and seatenced to undergo R.l. for eight years. Sd/- TP.Shas-ma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge