1 % Hi(lH_COVRTOF__CriHATIlSGARH_AT,B!iASPUj AopeHant /!" Jai!5 Respi DiViSiGN iri-u' 1 CORAM :Hon'ble Mr.T.P.Sharsna & Hon'jsle Mr.R.N.Chandrakar, JJ. Buohha @ Laiskumar S/o Tiri Haiba, aged about 45 vears, R/o Vi!laas Bandajj Pateipapra, Police Station Lohandigunda, District Bastar (CG) vs. Stats of Chhattisgarh, Through Poiic< Station Lohandigunda, Dlstrlst Bastar (CG) (Criminai Appealunder Section 374(2] i"r p r- \ \^j .r .\»f.^ Mr.vimiesh Bajpai, counssi for Shs appeltant. Mrs.Madhunishs Singh, Panei Law/er for the State/respondent. w, (Passed on 31SI October, 2011) Chanenge in t'nis appeal Is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 22.2:2006 passed by ihe Sessions Judge, Bastar at .jagdaipur, in Sessions Trial No.522/'2005, whereby & 'A-'nereunder iearned Sessions Judge after holding the appeiiant guiity for commlssion of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Babiu convlcted him under Section 302 of the indisn Penai Code and sentenced to undergo smpnsonment ror iife. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that withoui any iota ofevidence, the irlai Cpurt has convicied and sentenced the appeiiant as aforementioned and thereby committed iilegsiity. 3. As per case of proseoution, on the fateruS day of 26.10.2005 at about 9.30 ~ a.m.'unfQrtunate deceased Bablu was v/orklng at stone parry, the ^^y^v^f^ii^'if^^ ^^•^i>ry^fr\ ^.f\. v^^^rvnf'^v^iff ^vn •r^,<**.s^.^>,i (in^ .<~i,-? !a("yt!^i;nv.f!'v»ft?T!^ e~l/^?vte^ <^< ^•'ti'p'^s.^ cS^/p^i^cziil ^cSiii^ i.w p(3i S y tSi iU iji t c^v\/U'US il ^l !c£!j tpiyyEi i^'iEL ssuiuc ^^a.ussi fcu'h t^i/-s»*\/-i rt^/M^ 4'i^<*<i •^tt^.t^i/^iSI/^ i<t],j« <^t<"-f«>»^iitf'j^^J 0/^i^EiE i^^.t. i!*»t^i'^i^I i'"> ^t^s^^.r p^!^?. i'^-e&^^ '•sri/^ ^ plea^-^. iE'i^u i-f!^ £%pp^ii^iii, <%^53CTUll<3U OctUiU yy< £?p^U^ ^V^i S ii-S? |i ^krtit tfff\fv r<-/\f! ^ia rtf» ii^t. !»-E/^<^ fc^'~i]i-*tSE i t<t.U /'iit^tfl*^ r%Q?•*"'>nr»?'k r*"'.'~E/ t~»tryt T' tc^U ^^itvUc EUiUiico, uicSUiU i^'i UvWls, M^s •£»yss^ i.UvFs. f'ulf 1^ ^ •.'•s^.;':!^^ I 'S'S-:'-11J .i?' A-f .i«>' ^ Hospital, Jagdaipur. Laxman (P'vV-1), father of Bablu, went to Police Station and iodgea' dshati naiishi vide Ex.P/10 and on the basls of dehati naiishi F.i.R. was reeorded. During the course of ireatment Bablu died. A.ftsr summoRing ihe witnesses inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased. Spot map was prspared by investigating officer vtde Ex.P/4. Bloodsiained and plain soll were recovered from {he spot vide Ex.P/5. Dead body of the deceassd was sent for autopsy to Maharani Hospitai, jagdaipur vide Ex.P/11 where Dr.K.M.Gupta (PW-5) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/3 and found following injuries:- (i) Stitehed Vt'ound overleft parietai region of 7.5 cm. x bone asep. - (il) Tissue Tound beicrw. injur/ was found cut. (iii) Fracture of ieft pariefal bone and cut Inju"/ inside the brain. (iv) Sub-dural heamotoma and dispraise fractu.re of head. Cause ofdeath was coma. injuries were ante-mortem. During the course of investigation, ths accused was taken Into custody, he made disclosure statement of spade vide Ex.P/6 and same v»'as recovered from t'ne iliant vids Ex.P/2. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of t'ne Code of Criminai Prooedure, 1S73 (for short 'the Cocie') and aftsr completion or investigation charge sReet was ftied in the Court of Judicial Iviagistrate First Ciass, JagdaSpur, v/no in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, jagdaipur. in order io prove the gulit of the accused/appeilant, the prosecuiion has examined as many as seven wiinesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 e Ccde, in which he denied the circurnstances flnif^ ' 'appearing against him and ciaimed Innocence and false implicatlon in the cnme In qusstion. After providing an opportunity of hearing tothe parties, iearned Ssssions Judge, Bastar at Jagdaipur has convicted and sentsnced the appellant as sforementioned. Vve have heard iearned counset for 1 impugned and record oftte irial Co'urt. tne partses, sed the judgment :^^^l!Bi ^ '- 'f.'l ^^."^.^; [s '^'y -3 6. Learned counsel for the appeiiani fran'idy admits and submits that in the light of evidence of eyewitness Chlntu (PW-3) he Is not disputing that the appeilant has not caussd homiddai death of the deceased but submits that evidence adduced on behaif of the prosecution and injuries found over the body of the deceased reveai that the appeliant has caused injur/ wiShouf any motive or intentten and has eaused singie jnjury overthe head ofthe deceased, therefore, the act oft'ne appeiiant does nottravei beyond ths scope of Secfion 304 Part-il ofthe indian Pena! Code. 9. On i'ne other hand, iearned Panei Lawyer for the State opposes the appeai and submits that the present appeiiant has caussd fatai inturies without any cause and propnety. Learned counsei furthsr submits that evidence adduced on behaif of the prosecution Is sufficient to estabiish the fact that the present appeiiant has caused homicidai death amounting to murder of the deceased and the trial Court has rightly convicted and .sentsnoed the appellant as aforemeRtioned. 10. in order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behaif of the parties, we have examined the evldence adduced on behalf of ths partiss. 11 inthe present case, homicidai death as a rssuit of fstal injury found over the head of deeeased Bablu has not been subsiantially disputed or, behaif ofthe appsiiant, even otherv.'lse, it is aiso estabilshed by tha evidence of Dr.K.M.Gupta (P/v-5) and autopsy report Ex.P/3 and death was homlcidai in nature. injuries reveai ihat aii the injuries have been caused by singie siroke of spade over the head. 12. As regards i'ne complidfr/ of the accussd/appetiant in the crime In question, evldence of Chintu (PVv-3) who was present on the spot and has witnessed the incident is sufficient for drawlng inference that the present appeiiant hss caused singie blow of spade over the head of the deceased.The appeiiant has not offered any explanation that why he has caused injtiry, but as suggested to Bhimsen (PW-2) it appears that on account of iabour/work the present appeiSant has caused injury. As per x.p/6, spade was iying nsar the piace of inciderst. This is a case of singie stroke. The appeilant came to the sppt without any weapon and on socount of dlspute relating to iabour/'vvork, he took out spade and caused slngse biow over the head of the dessased vvhich sh6i?»'sthat the present appeiiant has caused death 'A'ithouf ipremeditation ."•w i— suddeniy after picking spade from ths spof. This shows thst the present appe!iani has not caussd homicidai death of the deceased with intent to cause his a'sath, bui at the time of causing such injurtes he was having dsfiniie knowiedge that by his act the deceased may die. Therefore, the act of t'ne appeiiani doss nof travei beyond fore corner of Sectton 304 Part-i of the indlar, Penai Code. While convteting and sentencin< tho indsan Penai Code the triai Court has and thereby committed iiiegaiity. ieiiani under Section 302 of the coRsidereci the aforesaid aspect 15. For the foregoing reasoRs, fhe appea! is partiy aliowed. Convicfion of the appeilant under Secfion 302 offfie indisn Penai Cods is hereby aitered to Section 304 Part-i of ths indian Penai Cede and sentenced him to undergo R.i. for eight years. The appellant is in custody since 28.10.2005, he is entitled for set off for ihe period of detention. Sd/- T.P. Sha®ma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrafear Judge y-> ?n .-'L E^»-' \.,' i^v''J