^ •^ i^ IN THS HIGH COURT OF »DHY?> PBADESH .a.T-JAaLPUR. CBIMIt-aL SFPEBL HO. 1 QUO 3F 1994 APPSLIAHT 8- Baisakhu son of horan ]>hobj'i, JIn'JaiTJ ^ .. f aged; abqufc 35 years, resJdent of ," Vijay Nagar, p.3. KusrauDda, Tshs-Ll '^ andoistrj.et Bilaspar (M.p.). . (-" VBHSUS. f' :ESSP8S@SHT' 8- State of dhya Fradesh through S.H.O. P.S. B.ismurris, Tahsil and Distriot Bilaspur (M.P.5. /•' f" GRIMZrei ?iPPSftL_mDER SEGTION^374^pP TH33 GODS 11| OPOiBIIlTmT, PBOCEOURB, 19T3. • ,, ...^ t"N3 S'<K' HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritinker Ctiwcker Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 1994 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Baisokhuson of Bahoran Dhobi Versys . State of AAadhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) AAr. Sandeep Shrivastava, c.qunsel for the oppetiant, AAr. Vaibhav A. ©overdhan,PL for the State/respondent. CRIMINAL APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCE&URE JUD6MENT (20.07.2010) Present appea! arises out of theimpugned judgment and order doted 30.6.1994 possed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Tria! No. 241/1992 whereby convicting the accused/appeliant under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indion Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five yeors. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.3.1992 F.I.R. (Ex.P-3) was lodged by Inder Singh (PW-2) alleging in it that on 18.3.1992 when at the eve of Holi festival, musical programme was going on in his house, deceased Ransai came there and, thereafter, the accused/appellant also reached there. It is further alleged that theappeliant gave a lathi blow on the head of Ransai,/as a resuit of which Ransai fel! down on the spot itself. Itis furt'her atlege'c^-that an attempt was made to wake him up by sprinkling water on his face and then Ronsai regained consciousness ond went to his house along with his wife, however, he diedon 193.1992. On the basis of above F.I.R., .of'Fence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was % registered against the accused/appellant. After investigation, challan was fiied by the police on 28.4.1992 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accordin9ly the accused/appel!ont was prosecuted. 3. So as to hoid the qccused/appellant 9ui|ty, prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses in support" of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and folse implication in the case. Apart from this, witnesses namely Babulal (DW-1) & Mangal Das (DW-2) have also been examined by the defence in support of its co.se. 4. After hearing the part-ies the trial courf- has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appetlant submits that there is absolutely no evidence available on record to show as to where the deceased had gone after sustaining injuries on 18.3.1992. He submits that as per evidence, after regaining consciousness, deceased went bock to his house along with his wife and admittedly had not suffered cuiy major injury and, therefore, the possibiiity cannot be ruled out that in some other incide^t the deceased might have suffered some injury r^sulting in his deat-h. Att.ernotiveiy he submits that in the 1 facts &. circumstomces of the case, at best the accused/appellant can be convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Pehal Codeand not beyond that. ^^ 6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, it has been argued by State counsei that deceased died on account of the injury caused by the accused/appeliantand the said incident has been witnessed by Inder Singh (PW-2) <S Maksudan Singh (PW-3). He submits that post mortem report of the deceosed (Ex.P-1) also reflects that he died because of the head injury. He further submits that th.e court below has already taken a ienient view while convicting the accused/appetlont under Section 304 (paTt-I) of the Indian Penal Code instead of under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. I have heard counse! for the parties ot length and perused the material available on record including judgment impugned. 8. Inder Singh (PW-2) in his court stort'ement has deposed that at the eve of Holi festival, he and other fr-iends including Maksudan Singh (PW-2) were enjoying musical programme and at that point of time deceased Roinsai come to his Courtyard and the accused/appellant dtso came there from other side. He has stated that accused/appellant gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased and then he fled away from the spot. He ^submits thot on occount of the injury caused to the deceased, he fetl uncociscious and he ond his friends have also made efforts/ to catch hold the accused/appellant but the accused/appellant fted'wvay from the spot and, thereofter, an atternpt was mode to wake him up by sprinkling water on his face and then ftansai regained consciousness and went to his h.ouse atong with his wife. In the cross-examination, this witness stood very~firm ond has not stated any such thing l^^-r 1 4 |!> ^ '"**./.' -.^.-e^" f-f^.-^ which may help the accused/appellant. Another eye witness to the incident Maksudan Singh (PW-3) has also support-ed the prosecution case and has deposed thort like Inder Singh (PW- 2). Post mort'em of the deceased was pepformed by Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sin9hal (PW-1) and the post mortem report is Ex.P-1. In his report- he has stated that he found head injury in the size of 12 x 6 cm and the same was caused within 12 hours from the death of the deceased. He has stated that deceased died because of the said injury. He has also found frocture of right frontal bone. Athay Kindo (PW-7) - Investigation Officer has also supported the prosecution ccise. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that it is the occused/appellant who had caused injury to deceased Ransai, as a result of which he died. 9. Having come across the entire pros and cons of the motter the only conclusion suitable for the offenders like appellant herein is the apathy not sympathy. Accordingiy, this Court finds nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and to blow a life to the appeal. Appeal being iifeless is dismissed. Sd/ Pridnker Diwaker Jadge D/- i