^?T M ftl" ;T] , Z S' s iWSS^ n> .0 o^•. !" ^r: » '.r^ .'& tf •> .-o: ,'a.; /ft>:; s> o o "• oc •, •s o o n o .l-ts 1-t .CT-&.,s A; ••:f^ ' 'v oo -I o.. .fc'.'i... .6."'-•<• sa r-t-."i A »-t <T>.oro B • t3 •5 ,'u 'B o •<;- s- CP •^ o B 1§- ^ • t{!..^ y -) !ii- »S &. ??.W <5d.2 ^" 5* ^ ^'Q' e^ ' n> &3 i&l^l^ ,J'^lc§i^ .o ^ y '." " GO' iifiy 'iiil.ri p ,tQi ^ ^' *-y S:. 5"131g'o>15' Sf2 |S,& i.ga..?'!1? :& 11 3 o' na t3 ^ S i? .3 o s^ . (-»• 5. C3" V S- n £." "'." a^ ^^ •< o sS ^a »o ?. «) 6 a -3 tJSil itilil, ilSitiS' 't'j'il'ii' "lilill' "' °•(7,3'. ct i? $ ,!B ," -S: ^, v ^.'~+ 'ci^' o' ^. o., t'ttilt ll,5'.ig"l. S:S:g-.S yS • lil:iri' •° S" 3s rt s> C6 y" riis " ^ ts ' : • 8 3.1 S:f cn' tis •< : rp. ,ls''s: S.N' 0. n •s.°.£t. IS 9''E>< 1"' i"- r£ ^i' <" o'* O «",a l< S ^ S 'f 'y •:?11it1 >a ^ B S5.T3 i:'&t •Cl< CiX ^.^i.f tS.87^ WM-!^ '^v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR C^-.AppeaI No.1147/1997 Laklianlal -Versus- State of Chliattisgarh JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION Hon'ble Shri Justice L. C. Bhadoo Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sd7- L.G.Bhiidor Judge A-A. f Sdf- (JUDGE) <»ly-.09.2005 / .K i!N i i • ./: m ./a ••>!' HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Cr. Appeal No. 1147/1997 Lakhanlal • Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 't' CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICEJ L. C. BHADOO SB HGli'BLE 8HRI JUSTICE DIUP R&OSAHEB DBSHMUKH. JJ Shri Abbay Tiwari for ffae appeUaat. Shri Sunil Otsrani, Paael Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (Delivered on?^>.09.2005) Per Dilip Raosalieb Deshmukh. J. This appeal is directed agauust fhe judginent dated 26.04.1997 delivered by Shri R.N.Chandrakar, Additioaal Sessions Judge, Khau-agarh, Link Court at Kawardha in sessions trial No. 107/ 1996 whereby fhe appeUaat was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for conimittuig inurder of Motilal Grond ia the night of 23rd April 1996 aad sentenced to imprisoniiient for Ufe aad a fine of Rs.500/-, ia default, to undergo additional rigorous imprisoniiient for fhree inonfhs. 2. Briefly stated fhe prosecution stoiy is that deceased Motilal Gond was a Baiga who used to cure iUness by Jhaai^hunk. He was treatuig fhe / * son of fhe appel(&lt. However, whea fhe son of ttte appeUaat did not get cured, (he appeUaat got jaitnoyed. On fhe night of 23.4.1996, the deceased Motilal and Nohar P.W.3 had gone to fhe house of the appeUaat and had consuuied jliquor. Thereafter, the appeUant caused fhe deafh of Motilal by assaultihg^ huri;.by a laihi. 3. . On fhe next day, Gulab Sjngh P.W.l who was iu search of MotUal for fhe treatmLent of his son did not find Motilal ia his house. He wenL JO AI3A033J 3tp O^ SuCt^{3.I 30U3pTA3 3Ip TpIA p3ldn0.0 TIOtSSapIOO '[BIOIpTlf T3flX3 3TR cq SapBiaj g'A'd UTnSno paB g-A'd IBi»pfmg 'S'M'd moHqo 'Z'M'd qSttiS T"FBO 'T'A'd qSuig q.B[rlO jo apuapTAa aip pne £-M'd-reqoN jo AioTirpsat jepioo 3T[). aodn gui^py •ssssaiqUAvs^ sigaAiEui SB pauiiuexs uopnoasctid aqj, -paonppB SBS&. aoaajap ui souapiAa oj^ 'gT'd'xg SB pss[jBva. SB/A. •[[orqA 'O'd'-iO ^Q^ Tiortoas .Japan l-iodai tlia^ioui-tsod 3TpJO S83TI3T[inU3§ 3T[^ p3n Ip13 3H '^TlriS srq pamrqB4T[^[[3ddT3 sqj, "•^,; 'O'd'I S0£TioTtoag iapim lB[po}\[ jo .ispLinui STq^TOiitioo joj p3^no3So.id STSM. vjEya&de aip 'HopBSTtsaATii jo aopaidTaoo i3yy •pTreqsnq Jaqjo fec^ 3q o^ ^'cl'xg apiAi^Uj aq^ p3gpu3pT •'pasBsosp STRJO 3jiM '/,'^'d ieg ^gTmqo •T: •d'xg apiA ^irejjsddB sip jo yts£f-cno3 sip laoLg p3ZI3S 3.13M p3SB303p 3Tp O^ Suignopq s[t)d<ftn{^) jo jTed pTre l^o; jaTpOTry 'S'd'x3 3PTA ^UB]J3ddB 3TR JO asnoq ST^ uiojg pazias SBA ti(fi3l npuaj, 3uo 't7'M'd'xa ^Tre'i[3ddB STRJO TanpitB.lOTiiani 3tp uo 'Asdo^nB aip SirRJKtS ajojaq s.m.oi[ g/, o^ 91? uixpiA SBA Tp.Bap soiiis passed aicttj. •aoTtisodTiioosp paoaeAp^ o^. anp ipBsp jo ssneo sq^ o^ SB uaAiS aq pp-ioo noiaido ou 'aptredqsaQ 'JQ o^ Snipiiooov "Apoq atp jo uopisodiiiooap o^ aiip pa^oa^ap sq ppioo Ainfai TBiuapo ou pue pasoduiooap SBA Apoq aip vev^ punoj oqA 966l't?"9Z TIo spiredqsaa 'M'A "-[a ^q. ps^anpaoo SBA Apoq pBap 3Tp UO II[3p:OTH-l.SO(I -^pOq 3T[t lao-g Sumioo SBA naias Tno^ •^iiBnaddi3 aip jo asnoq sv^ aptsxn Stn^ Apoq sq^ pxmoj oqA 6"M"d ^Seqa'd'S JO^osdsui -qng Aq 966T "l7"9S 1[to paiedaid SBA {B]TtO]ft[ jo Apoq pBap jo ^niBtTqottBij e-d'xg apiA -TT'd'xg spiA •)Arc} QO-SZnocCev: 966T'WSe T:I° aoBSpiiBufea .'. -toiqstQ 'Tqd]rqo uopiqg soTIod V3 T'M'd qS S qBTnD Aq paSpo^ 8BA •yrj •g-M'd ninSno pue 9-A-d TBI^pmis 't^'M'd niBmSBqd 'S-M-d qSaig TufeQ 'Y 'A'd qSaiS qBFlO aiojaq uoissajraoo ^eioipnf vi^xa VB apBui ^UB[[3ddE atp 'p35(SB Suiaq UQ "piByaddv 3Tp jo p.ieAt.moo aTp ui STnAt 3J3A& TBIRO^ jo sfoddtnp piie 5[3T).s aqt ^Tp MBS pTte a8B]j[A aTR punojB •\ ,.^Iw'S. fhe dead body ofMotilal froin the house ofthe appeUaat aad the seizure of his lathi aad Chappals also froin. the appeUants house, fhe trial Court convicted fhe appeUant under Section 302 I.P.C. for cominittiag niurder of Motilal and sentenced hiia as afoicsaid. 5. In this appeal, the leamed counsel for the appeUant has mainly 'l' contended fhat fhe offence cominitted 'by fhe appeUant did not travel beyond Section 304 part-II of the I.P.C. siace the appeUaiit aad the deceased had consuraed Alcohol ia the house nieaning fhereby that the appeUaat was in.toxicated. Besides, fhe post-iu.orteni report of Dr. V. M. Deshpande did not show fhat fhere was any extenial iujuiy on the body of fhe deceased. As a result fhe requisite iatention for causiag the death of Motilal could not be attributed to fhe appeUaat aad fhe offence, if auy, would not travel beyond Section. 304 part II of fhe I.P.C. On ttie other haad, leamed coiuisel for the State argued in support of fhe judginent of the trial Court. 6. We have heard the rival contentions an.d gone through fhe record of the trial Court. We find fhat there is evidence of Nohar P.W.3 fhat he and the deceased MotOal had gone to the house of fhe appeUant where they • had consumed Uquor aud fhereafter fhe appeUant sayiag fhat Motilal did not cure his child assaulted him by lathi. The testimony of Gulab Singh P.W.l shows that.while he went iq, search ofMotilal, he saw fhe lathi and ./ Chappals (^"MoAilal lyiag iu fhe courtyard of fhe appeUant aud had asked him about Mqtilal. He has deposed fhat fhe appeUaat had told hiTn that since Motilal had not cured his aUing son, he had kiUed him by assaulting with a lathi. Thi^'testiinony is corroborated by Phaguram. P.W.4, Chliotu P.W.5, Suaderlal P.X.6 aad Gugulu P.W.8. Thus, ttie evidence offhese witnesses is consistent,' reliable aad has reinaiued uarebutted ia cross- exatninatiou. Apart irora this, fhe fact of recoveiy of fhe body of fhe ^ 1 ,!m[<^\^ 1:1 II deceased as also his Jathi aud ChappaJs fsxnn the house offhe appeUaat is also a serious uicriminatiag circuxnstance agamst the appeUaat which proves his cotnplicity ia the death of Motilal. After perusiug the evidence on record, ia our considered opiruon, the trial Court has rightly concluded fhat the appeUaat had caused the deafh of Motflal by assaulting by lafhi. "•> 7. The only questi.an which now reniauis to be seen is as to what offence did fhe appellant coiiunit It is not disputed that due to decoinposition ofbody, no extenial iajuiy could be detected on fhe body of Motilal. On intemal exanunation also no jfracture was found. The cause ofdeafh could also uot be opiaed. It has coine ia evidence ofNohar P.W.3 that the appeUaut and the deceased had consuined Alcohol before fhe occurrence took place. Therefore, on the facts aad circuinstaiices of the case, in our considered opinion, at fhe luost it caa be iafen-ed fhat the appeUant while assaulting Motilsil had fhe kaowledge that he was lilcely to cause death of Motilal. Reqiiisite iatention for brining hoiae the guilt under Section 302 I.P.C. could not be attributed to the appeUant in. the facts and circuinstaaces of the case. The ofFence coTnmitted by the . appeUaat, fherefore, falls under Section 304 part-II ofthe I.P.C. 8. In the result, the appeal is pardy aUowed. The appeBaat is acquitted ofthe charge iinder Section 302 I.P.C. and is iastead, convicted under Section 304 part-II of the I.P.C. The appeUant is in jail siace 28th / April 1996 i.e.^ fys: inore fhan 9 years. In our considered opinion, fhe award of custodial sentence already uiidergoue by fhe appellaat would ineet the ends ofjustice. We order accordingly. ~sST L.G.Bhadoo Judge --^\ „.—.,-.,—;.^-^. -=;—wy" Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge