^ MiaHeOURTOFGHHATTISQAtttl:BIU PUR fc DIVISIONBENCH: HON'BU SHm T^SI-UUtNAAND .tlON'BUESHRIR.L.JHAIWWytJA APPELLANTS flNJAlLl R6SPONDENT CriminalADDeatNo.^WofMftS 1. IUIanjal,S/o Bhalyaram Yatav, ^ed 48 yeare, OccupaUon: Labour, Rfo Lotan Kanjipani, Poltee SlaUon Pali, Dist. t^)rba(C.G.) 2. Tlimanhin @ Rankwwiar, wife of Mtanjal Ram Yadav, aged 40 ywis, oocupafion labour, resKlent af vlltege Lqtan Kanjipani, Police Station Pali, Dsst. Korba. VERSUS State of Chhattiagarh, threigh tts Pelica Statton Pali, Dist. Korba. CRIMINmLAPPEALUNDERSEei10tt374®FTMECRNUNN^. pRQCEIXJWtSODE iln i'"'[ Appearance: Shri Rallav IMishra, counsel fer ttw appayants. Mre. Madhu NishaSir^h, P.L. forlheState. ©TOMSR (Rassed on ZSJM.ZDtl) Per T.P.Sharma. J. Chatter^e in this an»alis to ttw judgnient of cwvteUon and o»d)Brof sentencedated 30.01.2006 passed !n S.T.hto.630004 by the Se^ions Judge, Korba whereby and whereunder alter hdding ttw appellantBguittyfor commission of culpabte homicid®amounUng to muntor of Kesharf Yadav, ttKB Court below convicted thsappellants underSection 30204 ttfthel.P.C. and sentenced them to impirfeonment fer tife wBh defautt of Rs.1000/- each and in detault tpundergo Smonths R.l. 2. The convicBon Is imptgned on ttw ground ttwt wlthout credibla, clinchingand legal evidence.ttie Court below ccnvteted and switBncadllie app$llants as aferementioned and ttiereby committed Ut^aNty. i:'-'-isa .^^1 ^ iWS^f;^^. 'i'! j ^s^y ^ii?^" 3. AsperthecaseofprosecuUon,onfate(uldayof 30.08.2004M2.30to 3.00 pm the appellants wereassautUng dTCeased Kwhal Yadav. Brotherof Keshal took him to his.then the appetlantagain cameto the house ofNestal Yadav, where they abused hlm. When he cameoirtofthe house,then b<Ah the appeltante assaulted appellaat by sUck resutBng into seriovs Injuiy. P.W.1 Savtta Bai, wife ofthedeeeasad, wenttothepelicestatfenand hx^ed F.1.R. vide Ex.P.18. The appgllants as well as ttia cteeeased twre aent for medicalexamtnatlon and mediral teeatmenfc DuringthecouBseottrealmert;, th®dece»ed died. Meig was recOrded vide Ex.P.19A aml Ex.P.19. Investigafing OffiGer, aftersummoningthewltness^vldsEx.P^Z, prepamd the inqu^t over the dead body ^ride Ex.P.3. Spot map was pfepTed vi^ Ex.P.1 Dead body was sent for autopsy to C.I.M.S. Bih^Mir victe Ex.P.15. Dr. A.K.Shutda P.W.7 conductBd autop^ vkle Ex.P.13 and feund the following injuriesand symptoms: 1) Blacknsss around the left eye. 2) aoodclot over mouth, nostril,toftaar, hawnatoma and ttie front<>-pari®to-tBmporalr^ion. 3) MulUpto depressed fractures ^over left parietat t»n8. 4) Fractureofbasedskull. Mode <rf death was shock.. During the couree of inwsUgsrtion, mcusetMappellatit Man^il was taken into custody. t-te made dlsclosure statemant oTsUGkvtde Ex.P,4 and the same was recovered vide Ex.P.5. Appellant Ram Kunwr wasateo talan into custody. She madedisclosure statement <rf dtek videBx.P.6 and the same vras recovered at Uie instance af Ram Kumrar vide EXiP;7. Bloodstained and plain solls were recovared from thespot vide EX.P.& Sealed cloths of the deceased were rMovered vide Ex.P.11. Rrtwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P.16. Seized articl«were sent for chemieal examination and presence of blood over the sttek wa« conffranect ^de Ex.P.21. Statements of the witnesses were recoKlad undw Sertion 161 of the Code of Crimlnal Procedure, 1973 flbr short'the Code'). 4. Aftercompletion of invesUgatton, cha^eshsetwas flledbafere Judiciat Magistrate Fir^ Class, Ka^hora, who in tum commiBBd the theSessions Judgs, Korba. the to ..-'•"-e«!!.»\, i i!)L: 'to^'y "^;.._ "T.^C'" "'•"•sw»y 5. In order to prove the guilt efVhe appeUants, W prosecutton exanined as many as 11 witnesses. The tccused appellante wereateo eaaMninecl under SeeUen 313 of the Code m whidi they denied the ctocumstuwes appearing against them andclajmedtheirinnecenceandfalseimplteaUon In crime Inquestton. t 6. Aftor affording opportunity of hMffing to the partes, the teanwd Sessions Judgeconvictedandsentencedtheappellantsrertwemehtioned. ;^ ' . ' •. t 7. We haw heard IShri PaltoV Mishra and Smt. Madhu Nlsha angh, leamed counsel for ths parUes, srt tength and perused ttw judgment impugnedarrtrecordoflheCourtbelow. 8. Leamed eounsel for the appeltants submte (hat m the Itght of statements of P.W.1 Savte Bal, vrite of Kedial Yadav and P.W5 Kewal Sii^h, he is not cUspuUng the tact tert the appellards tKive not caused the homteidal deatti of Keshal Yadav. He furiher submils ttiat inddentloolc place on prevoeaCon and sudden quarrel on aecount <rf land dispute. Pmsmrt appellants have nol caused any tatal injury to deceased. The deeeased himselffelldownonthefloor,thentheappellantsMttttepl«seofincident shows that they havenot causedwBhlntent to causedsathto theappeUsmt. In these circumstances, the aet ofthe appellants does nottravet tacyond ttie scope of Section 304 Part-11 ofthe I.P.C. ^ ^ 9. On the other hand, leamed counset forthe Statoopf»sedtheappKri and submits that on thegroundof cNspite, fil^yflie appdtartsc|uarreled with ttie deceasedand when the deceased <ame tp his house ttien ttiey cha»dand assaulted the deceased by sUck <n front of ttie houss of the deceased shows the grave intsnBon of the appsttants fsr cauang such homicidaldeath. 10. In order to appreciata ttie afgum'ente achnanced on behatf df the parties, we have examlned the evidence addueed on betatf af ttw prosecutlon. In the present case, homicidal deathas a resultoffatal injury found over the body <rf the deeeased Keshal Yadav has oot been sut3Stantia<lyclisputedonbehalfofthea|^)ellan(sbttfontheoUwhaRdats& established by the medical wMwnce cSDr. A..K.Shulda P.VU.7 and autepsy report Ex.P.13 anddeath ofdeceasedwas h<miic il in natuw. -ffl" \ ^ ^v »'' 11. As regards compliclty of ttie appetonts fci crinw in qiwstton, the appellants are not disputing the factum of homicidal deathcau8edbytt»m, on the other hand ateo sstabltshed bythe evhtence of P.W.1 Swrtte Brf, P.W.5 Kewal Stngh and P.W.5 FuBaai, whteh issuffiGientfordraNring drfintte conclusion that ttie present-appellants havs caused hEatrfchtoldeath of deceased Keshal Yadav. 12. As regards qusstion of motwe, in case <rf dired enAJwiGe, motivetoses its importanca.even otherwise, miBUve onlyaids in criminal^and tt can b® inferred ftem the use ofweapon,~part on the bodyaffeGtad and (rthwsunttair cireumslanc^. In the present case, as per tha avWencB of afwesakl witness^ and caseof prosecutton, there was land disputB betwean <h» (arties and the parties are brrthere in each other. Befora causlng such injury, both the partiesquarreled.thenbrelherofdeceasedi.a. P.W5(fewat Singh brought Keshal Yadw to his house. Wife of ths decessed iwnwly Savita Bal P.W.1 requested her husband not to go out from Ns housa. Thereafter, appeltants camatothe house ofthe cteceased and abuwd him, then the deceased came out fmm the hoi»e. The wpp^taiSs assaulted deceased. As perevidence ofP.W.1 Savlla Bal, theappellantRam Kunwar assaulted ttw deceased bystok over hisleg and appellant Manjat sasautted deceased bystickover his haad and when he fell ctown, then tlwy teftthe place of occyrrenw. IniUally, F.l.R. was flled under Setsttoit 294, 506, 3^ and 34 of tha t.B.C.and after death deceased Sectton 3(B <rf the I.P.C. has been added. The atoresakl cireumstances clearty reveal that atttiGK^h appellants were havlng futl opportunity to kill the ctecewed i.e. Keshal Yadav, but appellant No.1 Manjal and appdlant No.2 have net caasecl anymore Injuries to the decereed. VirtuaHy, Injury found <wer the hwd of the deceased shows thatsingte yaw has beencaused <»»rthehaactespecialty over thefronto-parietal-temporal area and when Ihe deceassd fetl on the floor the appellants left the place of occurTence. Ths fE»ts and cireumstances coUectedonbehaffofpnwecutioRrevealedthafiaappeUants have caused slngte fatal bhwover ths head of the dacem»d smd whan deceased felt down, then they Wttheplace of occurrerwsaml atttietune of lodging the F.IJ?. the deceased vra®alwe. The Incldent teok place duB to c<uarrel between ths parttes and Ihera ws»sertous tand (Usputo. Thwe ciroumslances show that fce appellants have csuised injury In sharing common intsntion and caused homteictal dea of Keshal butthey have fwt caused homicidal death amounBng to murder of Keshal Yadav and at the ^ fc ''-i~:':^'38 A' •^ /;:•• ^-^"•' ..'^''.. time of causing such injury, they have definHa knowtodgeUral by theiract Keshal Yadav may dle. The fact of serious quarrel brtween tt»e pariies regarding tand dfspute and heavy assautt on the deceased t^ tt»appellante shows that theact ofthe appellants doesnrt travel beyond •»«copeof SecUon 304 Part 1 ofthe I.P.C. ••K-. 13. WhileconvtetingtheappellantsunderSecUon302Q4ofthel.P.C.the Court below has not consldered the ctrcumstances in whfeh the tacidenttoek place and thereby committed illegality. 't 14. Consequendy, tte appeal ispartty altowed. ConvieUon and sentonce of the appellants under Section 302^4 of the 1.P.C. are aUBred to SecUon M4 Part 1 of the I.P.C. and the appellants are sentenced to riywous imprisonment for lOyears wtth fine of Rs.1000/- each and <n cfriiault o( ps^ment of fine, thsy shall torther undeigo R.t. for sb( monttis. The appellant No.2 te on bail. Hisbatlbonds^andcancelledsmdheshaUsu(renderb^>re the court concemed. — — ~K \ Sd/- §(]/. __J:^_——i R.L. Jhariwar ^P.Shanna \ Judge Judge )