IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Criminal Appeal No. ‘7?2V’2’«-/2002 Appellants Ramnarayan @ Ballu, Accuseds 3 S/O Samelal, (In jail) Aged about 23 years, 2. Ramshankar @ Nanka, S/o Smelal, Aged about 27 years, 3. Same‘lal, S/o Bhangi Kurmi, aged about 62 years, All are resident of Village Pauna, P.S. Pamgarh Distt. Janjgir—Charnpa (W?) VERSUS Respondent State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pamgarh, Distt. — Jajjgir—Champa (C.G.) Appeal u/s 374 of The Code of Criminal Procedure. > DIVISION BENCH: -HON’BLE R. LC. BHADOO AND HON’BLE MR. SUNIL SINHA", g. o‘s.o7.2005 Miss Shaimila Singhaj, c o'unsel for the appellants. Mr. Akhjl Mishra, Panel lawyer for the State] respondent. V'T ring on M.Cr.P. No.959] 2005 learned Iants submitted that she is ready for :ounsel ‘has no objection. Therefore, disposal. The accused] appellant judgment of conviction and s passed by learned Additional Trial No. 164/ 2000, whereby 1e: holding the accused] appellaJ under Section 302 of me I.P.C. read with Section 34 of the imprisonment ‘for life and to payment of hne to fmther Accused] appellant No. 1—RamaJ Oral. During the couxse of hea Counsel for the.accused/ appel &al hearing, to which State c the appeal is taken’up for &al has questioned the legality of :entence dated 30th January, 2002, Sessions Judge, Janjgir in Sessions uned Additional Sessions Judge after its guilty for commission of onence , in the alternative under Section 302 IPC, sentenced them to undergo pay tine of Rs.200]—, in default of for two months. 1a1ayan @ Balloo was also held guilty for commission of offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R RS200] -, in default of paymer i month. However, accused/ap Samelal were acquitted under n 7, tnt§$§l undergo S.I. I. for 07 years and to pay fine of t of fine to further under SJ. for one pellants Ramshankar @ Nanke 8t. Sections 307 read with Section 34 8r, C‘ XI—HC—22 WW, Wm,W Wm W ma mm mw mmmw WW§WW agmm . XI—HC—22 mm mm -1, ‘ Section 326 of the IPC with res was recorded. The prosecution stoxy, criminal appeal is that on 31. son“ namely Puneet Ram were were irrigating their &ld and 1 that time the accused/appella Sahduram why they had sto commg towaxris then‘ held on they do not have suEcmnt w therefote, they have stopped t' Thereafter, some hot exchang PWS, ‘ accused] appellant l deceased on his head with a s also assaulted with lathi, as a r spot. The matter was report 326 of the IPC and no iindimg for commission of oEence under pect to accused Ramnarayan @ Ballu iia' brief, relevant for disposal .of this 1.2000 deceased Sadhuram and his at their agn'cultural field and they icing other agiculmral activities, at nts came there and asked deceased aped the now of water which was which Sadhuram replied that m‘ ater in order to irn'gate their field, he how of water towards their held. e of words took place between the Ramanarayan @ Balloo attacked pade, other accused] appellants had esult ofwhich Sadhuram died on the to the Police Station Pamgarh at report the Station House O$cer, tered the case and took up the of investigation charge sheet was s in the court of learned Judicial who committed the case for trial to ur from where learned Additional the case on transfer for trial e about 800 am on receivm Police Station Pamgarh Iegi investigation. After completio hled against the accused/app Magistrate First Class, Janjgir learned Sessions Judge, Bilas Sessions Judge, Janjgir receiv axw e , e t XI—HC-22 WW WW Learned Additional Se arguments of counsel for acl Prosecutor and placing reliance on the evidence ofwitnesses namely Puneet Ram (PW-2), Rameshwar (PW-9) 8r. medical evidence convicted the accused/appellants and sentenced them in the manner mentioned above. Lealncd Additional Sess: Public Prosecutor, counsel for of xecond was of the View thg1 302 in the alternatiVe Section . and‘Section 307 in the alternative Section 326 of IPC are made out. a . Acconiingly, _ he framed the accused/appellants, however, chalges and claimed to be tried The prosécntion in orde as many as 17 Witnesses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the statements of the accused/appellants under Sec ‘on 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they simply denied the prosecution ase, and in the end, they stated that the prosecution Witnesses are in a false case. The accuse witnesses in defence. ssions Judge after hearing the weed/appellants, Additional Public r to prove the offence against the accused] appellants examined .ons Judge after hearing Additional the accused/appellants and perusal prima—facie charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC charges and' read over to the the accused/appellants denied the se and they have been implicated :d/appellants also examined three /a—‘ We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Panel Lawyer on behalf of the State] respOndent. m) / XI—HC-22 mm WW ”‘1 As far as the question o’ concerned as homicidal, ‘sam counsel for the accused/appe who conductcd the post mt deceased, has stated in his ‘ a f posted as Medical omcer Ir Pamgarh, on that day on the 1 ifnature of death of Sadhuram being 3 has not baen disputed by learned yams. Dr. D.C. Choudhary (PW-7), )rtem examination on’ the body of evidence that on 31,1‘2000 he was L—Charge of Primaxy Health Centre, equest of the Police Station Pamgarh he conducted postmortem on rthe body of deceased Sadhuram and :d wound on the left patietal region in tto bone; a depressed h‘acture and; a size of 2x1 cm. After examination he (EXP-7) and opined that cause of rmonrhage and injuries on the vital t further stated that on the same day of Puneet Ram—son of deceased and ted wound on the left parietal region in the size ‘of 6x'/2x1 cm. In i‘riew of the above medical evidence, it stands proved that the death of deceased Sadhuram was homiéidal in nature. Now, coming to the involvement of accused] appellants in the crime in question, leaxned counsel for accused/appellants very fairly submits that she does not want. to argue on the merit of the case. However, she submitted found that there‘was one incisl the size of 4Xyzxl cm deep u} bruise on the right knee in the pxepared post moxtem repot1 death was shock due to hat organs. The Doctor (PW—7) has he also examined the injuries found that there was one lace that on the facts and circumstances of the case, on‘ence under Seeu'ons 302 85 307 of the l.P.C. were not W Wm mm (ma) XI—HC~78 mmm Han aniwm WWW $7” made Dut and only QEence under wa$ made Gut. we haV€ paruwd the evidx ‘i‘he $011 nf deceased a3 also 311v; time he wa$ werki'mg ai the agric si’ét$¢ in his widence that as agricultursi iircm il1€r€f0rg h€ st {'19 (mw1i‘wm " $a~i§mm Sectitm 304 Part—II 0f £116 LRC. :ncta 9f Puneet Ram (PW—'2); “7110 is njured Witness and at the reirswmt .iltural Eeid, with hi3 father. He. haS ham was; paucity 9f Watttr in his clf’ app€£lalli§ Eisldg 011 tiij )ppcd th€ ilow of watar tawarg‘w ths :5 th€ acmlsaif appeEz-mts objlscted avid th‘areaihr, accused} aypellarh Swaldal camv: with a 1athi aim a$$aulted 111s faihsr, Wham he tn accu'aedi appdlant No. 1 Ramuarayall @ Balm came wit' he 1‘61} i . hisf father is bang assaulte 3d t9 intervenrs anii a3kcd that Why 1 spade amid aesaulted him, as a down K‘Issfalt of which I. then en the ’earth. Thereafter, acrjused/ appedani‘ Ramuarayem assaulted hi3 father Sadhurzml alSi‘: with the same Spade 011 his head. (9} corroberated the evidenee 0f t1: .y' eXELmma‘Liml the (Eefence emulsel makeS the evizience of the$e wimes After (:oliteitiering the abem‘: evix’ieace, thai the ihm‘dng 0f learned triai en by Spade by accueedf appellant Nn.1 i3 correct; as the Same is baeed 0:1 ieaal c: eviéence ant} we d0 not mid 5m iilfirmitv v 0t mecrat‘dt tr t r 1'11 the NEmka amd Samelal alsa awa‘uited his father with 1a? Similarly: other Witness .mame Accusexii appellaxlts Ramshagkar ehi. Rameéhwar {13W—E’E3 has adsa is WitneeS (PW—2) and; in erase- couki net elicit axly fact, which see unreliable or untrusmmrthy. we are of the opinion urt 1“egar(iing causing fatalinjury Endinc’ o. wt e SEW, Wang, W Wm @200 ‘mw (Wig) mwm ,_Q WW§WW ‘ '35ai%nea1%m As far aS th€ qu€sti011 0f ii 85 3311161511 is c0n061‘116c1. fmm 1:} P‘W—Q Ramsshwax it cannat Ram5hankar 8;. Saunalgl Wrii‘e r amumdtj appéHant Ramilarayall ( L. 36 his death. Hgwever, £rom is amyly‘atafblisheé that at the of WmrdS m0}; plaur: b61W€€n m n‘aaahuraln 1 naLrEeiv Pmms‘i Ram ivolvemem 0f accuSCd RamShankar 6 vividauce of PWQ Puneei Ram 8:, “we ’heid that amused} appeEants sharmg 60111111011 inmntion with i; Ballu for aéSaulimg Satihuram t0 the evk 611$ {If 3113mm Wih’leweSh i’: rxpur of momsm; souls hai xixchaluy, ax thrs 30:1 0f dniceaSfJd $ ‘ E336 agricultumal fmld 3f tile accu the iEra mstanca. SamAaIal assam Pulme‘t Ram triad t0 m’irznmm inflictgui mjur‘y‘ with a spad€ an } (iewm 011 i416 earth ami th€r€ai injury with Tim 3pad€ 011 Eh: Th€mf0ra in the: circumgtai1c55, accused perszms, Farticulariy; Ramshankai 8g Samdal were hawing 0r sharmg cmnmon hiteniiml with accused Ramnaraym t0 aSsauit ‘ihe deceased. Ra Ah the deadlv '3 E} ? ‘Smppnaxi thii fmw of water ‘kmVardS wxl ‘i351‘srm3. 9A3 per the evin'éence. m ied Sg‘dhuram with the lathi. when v, accused} amoeliallt Rajmlarayan Jc heaci, as a reeuk 0f which he fell ter, accused Ram.naraya11 infh'cied, ’ head of E1173 father $a.dhuram, it calmmi be held that 2&1 the three weapen like spacie. $3 such, fhe fimiing 0f the ti‘iai court regarding sharing cemmen mtentian 3v accused Ramshankar @ Nanke 85 Samdal with respect ta fatal injury is nei pmved, therefere, aceused,’ apyellallts R3111 Shallkar @ Nanke {’23 Sameilal have wrongly been convicted E33; the ti‘ial (301114; for commissian of 0§ence under Seiion 302g’84 :‘zf the IPC. Hewever ~ mu 83; PW'—9 Rameshwar Elle 0§ence as per evidenee 0f PW~2 Funeet Hr GéRPRJ~FS/350—l2/2000 50,000. 1 W mamW (Wu) mmm \w t mw§wm WWW r“? dearly made out against than, a$ widar 3362::ti011 3’33 of the IPC is tigay agsaultgd (hwasal 3adhuré‘ i Ema? coming i0 ‘L'he quesiit‘an regardmg convictinn 9f amused Nun}. Ramnarayau (35L) Ballu uflf héen diwxwsed abova that ddlari tmmfxiss We agricultural €1€1 (abjen‘itmi ”m it ‘and m that woe-(3‘ betW€en t 1%: parties. Thareafter, s er Section 302 0f the IPC, as has Rmeét Ram Siopped myw 0f watér 0f the accusew app€HantS they as. samé hot warés were éxcharxged aacuaedf appellarjt Ramllsmayan @ B21111 all af a 311;:M an inmctaé xgjury with a spmie on the heaé of deceased Sadhuram. Thsre i$ n JthiJlg in the aiid‘mce which gees. ”m $how tha‘i Ramnarayan attackerfi the (iusceaaeii with pre—maiitation mi pré—piammii or wiih an inn coritrarv. it is evidem’ fmm the hlfEictecE injury 011 the hemi of mmiitation in a $11dd€n fight in; umment Witlmut taking a11y u11€ unusual manger. Themfures Wé ‘ f culpable hgmicide nat amountmg m‘ m’m‘derr 111 the circum$tamces, we. are 0f the opixjml that a§enme uném‘ Smfion 304 Part—II of th accugwi} appéllant E61 for Whic‘ su’iEECi mt to meat the ands OfjusIE' :ntiam to cauw his Liéaih an th€ witknce that aecusgd Ramxmrayan chaeageéi Sadhumm withmlt pre- the haat of passirm on the spur 0f Am a(iva11tage 0r asted m a crual 0r are Of "dm considm‘efl Opiniml that ths act nf ac<=us€dj appallant £53 ftquardy C(wermi umEer EXCQJtiOFrI‘v ( k) Saction SOQ 0f the LRC. aim the act O‘i &(::cu$ed Ramnaray (43 BaHu falb urider tha categcxry c m1 with 1athi. GRPRiaFS/S59— £2/2G00—S0,000. ié WW W200 %aii%mam%¥r e LRC, was mack 011? agamsi: thc: h ’? years rjgamuS impxiwnmmlt is ramww mmm Wm $1200 ‘anémw (WEI) wwwm WW§WW %‘af%qanéw ‘of tha Han‘bia Apszx Court. Ln L16 matter :31” State of Raja§€chan ms. 1%aiyawamyam repertéd in 1§9& 13 guweme $33 the fac‘w 0f case were That accused Satvaamfayé Wa3 neighbour 0f Ehgla Some guard tag}: place h€tweer1 B1 oridevi, Wife 3f Bln'ma and th€ a‘trhged 811d §1€r€ waS €XC11a11ge Gi‘werds hatwcml hear arid accused Satyaaaxayén. 111 I‘hat'process t acaustid :asszaulted Bhoridtwi with ail ig‘xm mpa, $6 alse‘ injursd Goyal aiui thén went back t0 his Emuse. By Tha‘t film: Keaax Lal {1:3seased‘, brstha 0f Bhjma, Went ‘11ear ‘L’hr‘; 3101156 0f siccuwd aim .tarted q‘LmStiQm'ng thL’, accuse(1 as t0 why 116 was quarreljmg h‘ka 1' at m the mammg. Thereupun tha aCcusad rmc Gut Gf his hDuSe with a lmjfaraild inmateii a b‘mW on the abdanwn 0f KeSaI Lal a5 a 1 $111: 0f which hi$ mt€$tm€s azalne mat and 1m dial. The accuseci away fram that pEaca Gn tlJ£$S€ faciS, tn!“ Hgll’bla Aprm' Court ld that {he rCSpOnzsient had. n0? med the blow on any viial iaai‘ 0f Ram Gapal 01* Kwar Lai. Th; blow wa$ aimed at Ram (3033221 t ag h€ mmxad a3~id€. it Eandad 011 the stomach of Ke5ar Lal. Th .I‘efam, the Caurt hem that the iaypellallt sslmuki have hem con feted umler Section £304 Part—l 0f the LRC. and not undm‘ Sectian 302‘ Similariv, thr: prosecutian case in thé‘ matte; of Mahe$h Q's. gatata a? TzEadhya E’rade§h rep ‘tcd 3‘11 199% {6} $upreme Cages §G9 was that the deceased obj cted t0 the appellant nut let hi3 cattle tlmnage the crop. The ap )ellant: hawever, (lid net pay an}? heed ”£0 the request 0f The deceas d and hlsisted that he would Q1321: 12/2000—50,000l GRPRJ—FSBSO u h * R ’1 r :e b i ar- , ,1, IV xl,’ Wm @1200 ‘mw (W) mmm WW‘§WW , KRQ f7 , é? aimm ‘ Elm cattk 1’11 that fielzi mld altCN aiicn ausutid betW€€11 the ciaxeaS-sd {and the aecusgd. m that pracesv the {ippdlzmt (bah; a pharsga blow l ' V ‘\ i311 the haa$ 0f thé Liewawd Krishna Kama: as a rasuh (7f which he thkd L211 the spat, Cm them facm Htm’bk: Apax C(zurt, 1161.01 Eha‘t in 1.1, J16S€ circumstamma thr: acztused during a sudc’uen quarrel Withnut 273i}; premeditati011 agsaultéd tbs d€:4:ea3€d thamfnm the 0§61166 Wiji £311 within Excaption—4 to S€cti0n 300 0f 7th: LP‘C. therafoz‘e thé an(:u£Ss:(1 was 11::1d guilty under Section 304 Pari: I of 1116 LRC. . £3 far as th€ cenviction (y? accusedi’ appellagt Ramnarajxznl @ Bajlu limits: Sectimg 307 0f IPC is; concanmd, fram the (wkkncvs ()f E‘Vx-Q E‘un‘aet Ram, which has béal raferred 3b0ve. it cammi ba hea‘xi thaE accuseci Ramnaxayan {attackad P1131661 Ram with £111 intentim} 01‘ Emma’kdge t0 causs€ hi5; dcat1, as whan exchangt‘: 0f hat words tank yiacx“, behveen tham 0n T116 question of stappmg 0f ilcyw (If water ta the 35am of th€ accuwd} appeila‘ntSa Ramnarayan aJl (If 21’ $udd€11 m a. spur of momém‘. amaulted E’unéa‘ Ram x311 his 116ad with the wade, 91:3 a insult of which E16 rewivad a fracturs mjurv on his haad, which is a‘mknt irr‘m the mwical repmt EXP—8 am opininn 0f (imttgr EX.P~9. The injury waS immd to b6 griamus in nature artd game was calmed with hand and Mun“: Ghjvsct, as Such we are 0f the cz)1}$idered opinian that 0&631C€ undér Sectimn 30’? 0f the IPC was not mack out agajnSt the accuSulfappeHaItt Ramnarayan, hawever, 0n the evidence 311d circumetalles, by infh'ctjng grieV'me injury 011 the head 0f Puneet Rain accused Ramnarayaxl Wyluntarily caueed ERPRJ FS/350 12/2000 50,000. CaAf.’.5.?’.g:-. .... Wwwm. ‘a wWa$($$§mg) §wmR§%aa w g1\ @290 2.... a$man% $ wma$3%w$ mmW$wmm% a& $gt ' ‘%&%q&&$ grj'avous hurt, 1'11131‘aim‘a, his (:Ommiw‘ted. G§an¢e undm” Sactim'l 325 0f IPC. ‘gkartlv allcmed‘ Tim conviciian and n€1er Scotlun 302 of the LRC. 1'11 thza 1 Saciim‘: 34 are Sm; aSida, illgtead v ,4. , accuszalf appx%11a31t N01 Bailmarava11 (2‘; Ballu ‘iS (:onvicteei far miSsicm gf affsnca Imtiar Secfiun 304- Rafi-H of LPC. alld saniancac‘: 3am: anri to pav Em (9f R‘QOQ a L11 9f pavmsnt of ting E50 unclai‘gcz S1. fur 1 3'5:;cmth, Tha (:Gnvimjtm 1’1 C, Zn ths maxim The amMial is Sentanca 0f accufsm‘ilg' appeEai’ltS U imtiw: Srsctian 302 readr Wit} ‘ L n ‘ ii.) Hadergc §2nprismmmni for 07 j, 1T Saintétucs L1:=.1dt3r Sectiura 307 of 113 amusea‘f apgmllaglt N“ 1. Rammarm 13190. alKE SentencecE 1:0 1~1x1derg0 RI. J him}: C \r :‘Or 5 veam 'ikl amiault s:.\_‘ pavmani 0f film to S am diracted 170 run {tone ,man‘dy. Accusad] ammilant N052 §x . ale alsa'ast askia irmtead Themef 'an i5 cnnxzicm& minder Section 325 Of and ta 13 ay ne (If Rs . C‘ f) 0 f ., tméargu SI. fur 1 mgmh. Beth 111$ e 3 mimelv Rainsharlkar @ Nealka d; Szzz3e§ ai am cunvicttéd for (:Gnnnj_$s m1 af effmlca undar Sactign 3&2 R of 1111s. EPC a'mj santxanced to undergc; RE. l‘mi Ranlnarayan @ Balk: is Emit] mLfm' set—0% undar Szzmicm 4§$ (2f tha Cr.PnC. fm‘ in perind‘fm‘ which (:13 aimly during The investigation anri trial. Silme acmwed/ appellamg N0. ’2 £3»: 3 rm neat? t0 surrender and Their 1:3ail bench aria carmellad. far +l1rt36 memfrm. AC C(mlgequezltly, M.Cr.P. N03 SgfUS 31am gtards disposed 3i". Cm‘i)‘ d L.c.BHADoo Judge cap}? em p L ‘ g l##’ , #Q#I###,#. Sdh Wfy‘_¥ , sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 12/2000 50,0004 he remahmd in Pnlice arld juch'cigl Emma ah'r: mi V undargona thre e manths sax/mince, thertifore. theta is 4