v3-^c[ '^W\<^^, V»^\W[<S,, ^^W{^( ............^.^.:..^z< ••••••»«••••••••»y»»««»««»»»»»,«««»»»«^»»,,,,,,,^,,,^,^^ """" 'qWITWff^"-""""""""""---/'""""'-"^ 200 sn^r i^^ (Tj^^p^r) ^1^^TRpfT?F v^|cb 'pl»t^ ^ITW^TSTI^T HIGH COURT OF CHI D1VISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. L.C. HON'BLE MR. DH8RENDRA MISHRA. JJ CRISVIINALA APPELLANTS Vs RESPONDENT State Distt. Present: Mr. Arun Koohar, Advocateforth^ Mr. Akhil Mishra, Panet Lawyerfoj OR_AJ-_ Per L.C. Bhadoo. J: (11tf1 This appeal is directed ag^ of sentences dated 16th March,) Sessions Judge, Raipur in S.T. Sessions Judge after hojding t;h:e| of offence urfder Secti6 :';%2| f^pft^ TnTRrf "^f 'feT3t <r»i^.i< ^^tRPT^TI^T IATT!S©ARHAT BSLASPUR .HADOO & PEAL N0.476/2001 1. Bhi|wan, s/o Gendlal, aged about 37 yea|-s, R/o Village Choradih, P.S. Arahg, Distt. Raipur. 2. Sorjinath, s/o Nandu aged about 45 yeajrs. 3. Tik^im, s/o Somanth, aged about 18 yea|rs. 4. La^eshwar, s/o Somnath, age about 22 yesjrs. All R|/o Village Chorhadih, P.S. Arang, Distt.1 Raipur. 'f Chhattisgarh through P.S. Arang, ;aipur. appellants. the respondent-State. JUD©_jVIENT May, 2007) inst the judgment of conviction and order 2001 passed by learned 3rd Additional No.62/2000 whereby learned Additional aecused/appellants guilty for commission o^the IPC, senteneed each of the FS/246—2/2007— 50,UOO. 75^' ^WW^, yiTfi«ll<S, is)01<1^< ^wvii *^l<sb< V^ 200 ^n^^ Kt'ijcb 'TOT ^^ 'sh^icb ^. h-^ 3nit?r ^S^K (4<s(^<i?y) ^^w^rf?^^n^T accused/appellant to undergo R.| Accused/appeltants Tikam & Lafl Seetion 325ofthe IPC and each| R.L for 3 years and to pay a fine wa's directed that accused/appl undergo R.l. for one month and ^ cr»i^t<n<flTi'HTR^ff^ 'fe^t ^^K. '^^fRfR^TT^T |. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. (hesar have also been convicted under ofthem has been sentenced to undergo |3f R.500/-. tn defautt of payment offine, it Nant Bhuwain & Somnath witl further ^ccused/appejlants Tikam & Lakhesar will further undergo R.l. for V/z mohths. It is further directed that both the sentences shall run concurrentiy. Case ofthe prosecution,,ii|i brief; is that on 23.11.1999 at 9.00 a.m. Manvishram (since deceased) an|i his son Dhanendra (PW-1) were reaping the paddy crop in their field. at| there and started reaping the p^ deceased and his son objectedj reap the crop and thereafter,| Dhanendra with lathi, sickle & injuries sustained by Manvishram| Thereafter, the accused personj meantime, cousin sister of Dhan| scene, she saw the incident an| Sukhwaro Bai, v^io reached uHconscJous condition. Injured D1 but the same was not availabie.l (PW-7) brought a jeep in v^iich Dhanendra lodged the F.1.R. (Ej was registered by Shri R.S. Ratld| |that time the accused/appettants arrived |ddy crop sown by the complainant. The but the accused/appellants continued to |they started assautting Manvishram &. |xe, as a result of which on account of & Dhanendra, they became unconscious. ^ fled the scene of occurrence. In the tendra namely Lalli (PW-8) arrived on the d narrated the story to her grandmother DH the spot and saw Manvishrami jn lanendra asked her to bring a bultock cart, Thereafter, Vishabhar Prasad Chaturvedi yianvishram was taken to Arang Hospital. (.P-1) jn the Police Station Arang, which ey ((3W-9). Merg intjmation (Ex.P-24) was 'RJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50,000. ^^3.^SS^S^»SS^ ^-^1 •-^1<M10^, y>Tfl'MIKS, R)(?!>l-y^< ^Wvi[ <k*<(ch" Wi, 200 ^n^r^rfriicF 'sb^lch L^., 3nisr ^^? (4C<^<^) ?:SRnw^f?n^n^T given by Mpharir ofthe Police St of Manvishram was sent by Dr. G Sub tnspector Shri R.S. P; Panchas and prepared inquest E^ Manvjshram was sent for posl Primary Heafth Centre, Arang postmortem on the body of Mar incised wounds were found on th^ the right hand, one lacerated wo| swetling below the chin and mar Ition. Information Ex.P-23 regarding death |K. Choubey. indey (PW-9) gave notice (Ex.P-3) to the :.P-2 on the body of Manvishram. Body of (mortem examinati'on under Ex. P-25 to ^here Dr. A.S. Parihar (PW-2) conducted ^vishram. As per postmortem report, four head, two indsed wounds were found on <nd on the right parietal region, there was Idible bone was fractured. There were six ribs were fractured and fracture< ulna bone was also fractured ancj syncope as a result of head inji and death was homicidal in natut Dr. A.S. Parihar (PW-2) h|s of Dhanendra and found that th^ wound. there was swetling on t\ parts ofthe body, one lacerated| ulna bone of right hand was fracfli During investigation, inji,<r examined and one simpte injury left knee & one lacerated woun^ Lakheshwar were noticed by th| Somnath gaVS' memorandi.inaj^) ,IPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50,000. cr>i<if<n4ITi 'Wf^f ^ ft^ ipa-S^K '^^tRpT^TT^r bruises, incised wound on the finjger ofright hand, left side 4th, 5th, 6th & 7th ribs penetrated jnto Jeft lung. Right hand doctor opined that the cause of death was ries, puncture of lung & profuse bleeding i. Hisreportis Ex.P-5. id aiso examined the injuries on the body sre was one incised wound, one lacerated le right forearm, three bruises on various wound on the ring finger of right hand and ired. ies of Lakheshwar & Tikam v^re also in the head ofTikam and two scratches on on the left parietal region of the head of doctor. White in potice custody accused [.P-I regarding lathj and under Ex.P-9 a XI-HC—78 ^ 3^ET ^<|^|<^q, ^>T{1yl|(o, ts|01'y^< ^Wv{[ *^l<h "^ 200 ^T^T^T'f^n^T ^T^T 'Sff^T $h^ich 31T^?T ^^ (1^1^<^) '^TTW^rft^1 ^T^T memoifandum lathi stained with blooct was s{ Accused Bhuwan gave regarding siekle and the same accused Bhuwan. Accusecj regarcjing sickte and the same accused Lakheshwar. Accu^ regarding sickte and the same| under Ex.P-15. Site Plan (Ex| Officer. Ciothes of accused S<j seized under Ex.P-17. Shoes, soil, broken piece ofwooden cl^ under Ex. P-18. Site plan (Ex.Pj After completion of inve; of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class| tearned Sessions Judge, Raipui] Judge Raipur received the ca| order to establish the charges 'Mtnesses. Statements of accus 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they d^ the prosecution evidence and fafsely implicated in the crime. Learned Additional Ses; Jearned counsel for the respe< accused/appellants, as aforem< <=hl^{<rl4l'1 *ll^<yiT ^fe^t ^t^K ^a^pT^TT^r ijzed at the instance of accused Somanth. Ex.P-10 while m the police custody twas seized under Ex.P-11 at the instance of -akheshwar gave memorandum Ex.P-12 \HSis seized under Ex.P-13 atthe instance of jed Tikam gave memorandum Ex. P-14 was recovered at the instance of accused .P-16) was prepared by the investigating Imnath, Bhuwan, Tikam & Lakheshwar were Chappals as wel! as blood stained & plain ib were seized from the place of occurrence \2Q) was prepared by the Halka Patwan. tigation, charge sheet WQS fited jn the Court Rajpur who in turn committed the case to from wh©r@learned 3rd Additionai Sessions >e on transfer for trial. The prosecution in (gainst the accused/appellants examined 11 led/appellants were recorded under Section ^niecl the material appearing against them in tated that they are jnnocent and have been I'ons Judge after hearing the arguments of |tive parties, convicted and sentenced the 3{ntioned. XI.HC—78 75^ «^HI^,^TQyifi, f^<7i'l^^< ^IWdl ^R^ra? •^ 200 3?J^I^T'f^i^ ^W ^^WH^ IN^I 3^?T ^^ (yqfysq^) '^iTW^^^i^? We have heard Mr.j Mr. Akhii Mishra. P.L.forthl Mr. Kochar has noti Moreover, in view ofthe evji anct son of deceased, as a| conducted the postmortenr| death of Manvishram was injuries due to injuries estabHshed that death of W Arun Kochar, Advocate for the appellants and respondent/State. disputed the homicidal death of Manvishram. lence of Dhanendra (PW-1). jnjured eyewitness >o the evidence of Dr. A.S. Parihar (PW-2) whQ on the body of Manvishram and stated that Itomicidal on account of syncope and excessive s^stained by him on his head & lungs, it is linvishram ^A/as homjcidal in nature. , As far as the griev| concerned, Dhanendra has| and moreover, Dr. A.S. P^i injuries of Dhanendra on 23| One laceratedl wound side of head o< One Jaceratedj the right side Swelling & brujses Contusion in tt Contusion the Lacerated woi Ulna bone of ri^ht Therefore, in view o' evidence, the simpte & gri established. 4»8^id4i'<"W^ff 'fi?,fe^ ^fa^K '^^RR^??^r )us injury sustained by Dhanendra (PW-1) is stated that the accused persons attacked him rihar (PW-2) has stated that he examined the [11.1999 and noticed foliowng injuries:- in the size of 6cm x 1.5 cm on the teft |i right parietal region; Iwound in the size of 4cm x 2.5cm x 2.5 cm on jfforehead: on theright forearm. |e size of 4cm in the right forearm. ^ize of 5 cm on the right shoulder. i|nd on the ring fiinger ofright hand;and hand was fractured. |the above medica! evidence as well as ocular |vous injuries sustained by Dhanendra is also ^^s^^s-^^-^n-: XI-HC—78 ^ 3:5=cT?!TT?n^T, ^>T{1y^t(S, f«l<y'>l^^< ^l^ldl 5h^ll<!k •^ 200 3?n^T ^FT fqrilcn ^TSnW^T^RT^ ^ 3:IT^?T T^W (!^f^<^r) '^TTW^FTf^T 3^1 As far as involvement question is concerned, Mr. were reaping their paddy cr< Dhanendra appeared on the that process accused Lakhes|i head anct the accused perst While drawing the attention prepared by the Halka Patwa|ri impress upon that the accider|( father of accused Somnath S. On the other hand, lea^ judgment ofthetrial court. We have perused the of the trial court. Perusal of the trial raised before the trial court thi came on the place ^Miere the and they started attacking the PW-1 Dhanendra is th< 23.11.1999 at about 9.00 a.t paddy crop on their field, th< sown by his father where aci crop. His father objected thi abusing them in the names o1 house and returned within 10 chl^lfd^l^ 'HTR^if '^^*<1 <f^lt^i< "^3tRma?n^r of the accused/appetlants in the crime in Cochar argued that in fact accused persons )p in their field, at that time Manvishram & |scene with lathis, they attacked them and in iwar & Tikam also sustained injuries on their )ns have been implicated in a false crime. |of the Court towards the site plan Ex.P-26 jri, learned counsel for the appellants tried to |t took place at 'B' place where crop of Nandu, phuwan was standing. (ned Panel Lav^/er for the State supported the, (vjdence available on record as well judgment colirt judgment reveals that no such pteaw/as jit the deceased along with his son Dhanendra {aaddy erop of accused persons were standing M. injured eye-wtness, who has stated that on tfi. he along with his father was reaping the re was other field in ^Miich paddy crop was |used persons came and started reaping the same, on which accused persons started jmother & sister. Thereafter, they went to their fninutes carrying lathi & sickle. On seeing this, XI-HC—78 ~^S( ^I-MI^, ^^'1(5, isj^l'y^ ^Wdl ^hNlcb "^ 200 3n^T ^ Ry< Ti^ ^lq¥TW^^ ^.^ ^OT'c?^^ (li^H<^<^) i^ITWHf^ ^T^I they started going towards tt"|< road the accused persons att^ the axe on the head of his fat| When he tried to intervene, wth the sickle & lathi. On at became unconscious, Bhuwaib his father as a result of whicll fell down, accused Tikam & his right hand bone was fra( away. It appears from the was there and for sowing th^ between the parties and this ^ paddy crop sown by this fath| has categoricalty stated that has further stated that it is 'mi had sown the paddy belongs | southem side ofthe field of S^ Halka Patwari preparec presence of Jantram and ev^i has beenshown at the place found at the place 'A' i.e. at ^Miere the paddy crop was Mr. Kochar is taken to be (PW-1) that when they sawtli|e <=bNfd^h ^I^if ^fest '?Rn^i< ^•^^RRW^T jeir house, by the time they reached upto the icked them. Accused Somnath attacked with ler and other accused persons also attacked. laccused Tikam S. Lakheshwar attacked him ;count of injuries sustained by his father, he attacked him with sickle on the right hand of bone of right hand was cut. When his father llakheshwar attacked him as a result ofwhich stured. Thereafter the accused persons ran crfsss-examination that some government Jand crop on that land a dispute was going on /itness has stated that on the date of incident i^r v^is standing on the land. tn Para 15 he riaddy was sown by his father. In Para 18 he lorrect to say that the place where his father |to Nandu rather the field of Nandu is on the tanti Bai. the site plan (Ex.P-26) after a month jn the in that site ptan agricultural field of Nandu P'. whereas, the blood and other articles were :|ie distance of about 1 25 feet from the place (anding. Even if the arguments advanced by fue, even then the evidence of Dhanendra accused persons coming with lathi & other tlile 3^ET r^iqi^^i, ^Tfi^41<$, ^^1-H^< NWd) ^b^lcb ••^ 200 3TT^?T'qiRF (^dt^^) ^T^r^Tl^ri^ 'cT^r^iT^r ^pNr a'- ^. ^nw^ftn 3?i^T A/eapons, they started going toward^ •eached on the road, the accused p| slooci and other articles were found 3ccurrence 'A' was public road and a| chl^<vt<fly1 iTP^f ^f fiT3t <f^^« ^T ^fRFT ^371^T their residence and by the time they ^rsons attacked them that is why the at place 'A'. Therefore. the ptace of such there is no question of accruing •ight of private defence to the accus^d persons. Moreover, the injuries on :he body of Lakheshwar & Tikam a|re superficial and simpte nature, off- ;ourse one injuiy was on the head Manvishram is perused multiple injuri §icontusions were caused bytheac' ^f each accused. If the postmortem of ^s, incised vwunds, lacerated wounds ^used persons which were about 17 in ith cth »th ?th lumber. Even 4l", 5'", 6"' & 7"' l^ft ribs were fractured, fractured ribs aenetrated into theleft Jung and that Manvishram. Mandible bone & ulna y fractured and there were inciseci woi] sstablished that all the accused Manvishram. Similarly, injury report (Ex.P-5| :wo tacerated wounds on the head, /vas one of the causes for the death of one of right hand of lyianvishram were nds on the skull also. Therefore, it is persons gave merciless beating to of Dhanendra shows that there were ;ontusions on the skutl region & right jlna bone was fractured. Whereas, flhe injuries found on the body of Tikam §iLak'heshwar were simpie in nature ?ersons possibility of self infliction cai As far as the evjdence of Lallj of evidence of PW-1 Dhanendra rev^als that in Para 20 he has stated that n fact Lalli came after half an hour o1 :ermed as an eyewitness. In fact, sh| |and iooking to the injuries of gccused ^not be ruied out. |(PW-8) js concerned, a close scrutiny the incident, therefore, she cannot be ^ came after the accused party left the GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50,000. 755T ^l^l^^l, ^Ti1'(-IJI<£~, fs)01-M^< ^l^dl 5h^l<^* ^ 200 3Tii^r X|^F (^f^<^) sn^T^f^fw WT3?1^T *^i<sb Lr\ ^'Gshan/- scene of occurrence and therefolre evidence of Lalti that she wtnessecj Looking to the number of jnj< by the accused persons, evidence accused persons attacked his occurrence where the accused att| the involvement of the accusedl estabtished. Therefore, we are of t^ of the accused persons under Sec| clinching evidence and we do n\ judgment of trial court. Similariy, conviction of Tikam & Lakheshwar grievous injuries on Dhanendra For the foregoing reasonsj there is no illegality or infirmity in t| of the appellants being devoid of andthe same js herebydismissed.! (P^. Sd/- L.C, Bhadoo Judge ct>)Nt^i<flvi *ii+i<viT'6f Fs^l <F3i<^i< ^3T(^:T3?Tl^t •e, no reliance can be ptaced on the the jnddent. ijiries on the body of Manvishram caused of Dhanendra (PW-1) thatalt the four f^ither and the fact that the place of |icked the deceased was a public road, persons in the crime in question is ^e considered opinion that the conviction (ion 302 ofthe IPC is based on the legal <3t find any illegality or infirmity in the jthere is no illegality or infiirmity in the pncier Section 325 oftheiPC for causing ^-D. we are of the considered opinion that |ie judgment ofthe trial court, the appeat |iny substance is liabte to be dismissed Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 - - 50,000.