Chattisgarh High Court
Dhaniram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 August, 2025
1
CRA No. 735/2016
2025:CGHC:38768
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.11
17:29:11
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 735 of 2016
1 - Dhaniram Sahu S/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Bodridadar, Police Station - Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh. Present Address Dabrapara, Veer Shivaji Nagar,
Mahoba Bazar, Police Station Aamanaka, Raipur, Distt. Raipur
Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Aamanaka, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Shri Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
2
CRA No. 735/2016
05.08.2025
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 31.05.2016 passed by Learned Fifth Additional
Sessions Judge Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
No. 198/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 304 Rigorous Imprisonment for 07
part- II of the years and fine of Rs. 500/- in
Indian Penal Code default of payment of fine
additional S.I. for 01 month
2. In the instant crime, there are two accused persons. Out of
them Dhaneshwar Lal Sahu has been acquitted by the Trial
Court by giving him benefit of doubt due to lack of sufficient
evidence. Thus, this appeal by the appellant Dhaniram Sahu.
3. Brief facts of the case is that the complainant Arun Sahni (PW-
1), who is the brother of the deceased namely Sanjeet, lodged
the oral report in the Amanaka police station on 16/06/2014 to
the effect that he lives in Dabrapara, Veer Shivaji Nagar and
on 16/06/2014 at 4:00 p.m. in Dabrapara, he along with other
boys of the locality Dhaniram (appellant/ accused),
3
CRA No. 735/2016Dhaneshwar (acquitted accused), Sanjeet (deceased), Pawan,
Sukes, Kalia, Auto Kesariya were playing cards at the new
market. While playing cards, Dhaneshwar and Sanjeet started
fighting saying it’s mine. Sanjeet came to him and took all the
money, meanwhile the accused Dhaneshwar caught Sanjeet
abused him in the name of her mother and his brother
Dhaniram picked up a wooden stick lying nearby and hit
Sanjeet on the head from behind, due to which, Sanjeet fell
down on the spot. Saliva started oozing out from his mouth,
thereafter he called his brother Pardeshi and said that
someone is serious, bring an auto rickshaw, so he brought an
auto rickshaw, then he, Pardeshi, Gaurishankar, Vikram put
Sanjeet in an auto rickshaw and took him to Dr. Soni Mukesh’s
hospital nearby, when he refused, they took him to
Ramakrishna Care Hospital and got him admitted. On the
basis of the above information given by the complainant, P.S.
Amanaka registered a crime against the accused under
sections 294, 307 of the IPC and took it into investigation.
During the course of treatment the deceased died on
17.06.2014 and as such in place of the offence under Section
307, the offence under Section 302, 34 has also been added.
4
CRA No. 735/2016
4. During investigation, spot map was prepared statements of
the witnesses were recorded and after completing the
investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned
Court. The prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses.
Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC in which
he pleaded innocence and false implication.
5. The learned trial Court after completing the trial not found the
appellant guilty of the offence under Section 294 of Indian
Penal Code and acquitted him. However, convicted and
sentenced him for offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC as
mentioned in the opening paragraph of this Judgment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that finding given
by the learned trial Court against the appellant is perverse
and contrary to evidence on record. He submits that the
learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant only
on the basis of testimony of interested witnesses, however the
independent prosecution witnesses have not supported the
case of prosecution. According to learned counsel for the
appellant, the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the
appellant for the alleged offence, particularly when the
deposition of the prosecution witnesses are not corroborated
5
CRA No. 735/2016
with each other and there are major contradiction and
omission in the statements of witnesses, which cannot be
relied upon. Hence the impugned conviction and sentence are
liable to be set-aside.
7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the
argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant
and has submitted that there are sufficient evidence available
on record to hold that the appellant was guilty of the alleged
offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in
passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the
appellant hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to
be dismissed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with utmost circumspection.
9. The question for consideration is whether the accused
assaulted the deceased and inflicted injuries on him due to
which he died?
10. PW-1 brother of the deceased stated in his examination-in-
chief that on the date of the incident Kalia Sahni (PW-2) from
his neighbourhood came and told him that his brother is lying
6
CRA No. 735/2016
unconscious near Naya Market. Thereafter he went to the
place of incident and saw his brother lying unconscious. He
also deposed that when he reached the spot he saw Sukesh
Sahni, Pawan Sahni and Dhaniram Sahu and all were in
intoxixation condition. He further deposed that after
admitting his brother to the hospital he had lodged the FIR.
11. PW-2 Kaliya Sahni, who is an eyewitness,.stated in his
examination-in-chief that after returning from his duty he
went to buy vegetables at that time near Naya Bazaar. He saw
Dhaniram, Sanjeet, Sukesh and one another boy sitting. He
further deposed that he saw that Dhaniram, who was
inebriated, got up and picked up the wooden plank lying there
and threw it on the ground and started leaving from there.
After that the boys were standing there and taking among
themselves when Dhaniram came back and picked up the
same plank and hit Sanjit on his head due to which Sanjit fell
down on the spot and got injury on the head. Thereafter, he
went and informed about the incident to brother of the
injured i.e. PW-1 Arun Sahni.
12. PW-6 Sukesh Sahni stated in his examination-in-chief that on
the date of the incident he along with some other boys were
7
CRA No. 735/2016
playing cards near the mall under construction. He further
stated that suddenly Dhaniram got up and went to the back
side and hit Sanjeet’s head from behind with the wooden
plank due to which Sanjeet fell down on the spot.
13. PW-9 Dr. Nitin Barmare stated that the body of the deceased
was brought to him for post mortem on internal examination
it was found that inside the head of the deceased there was
an uveal nodule measuring 14 x 10 cm and was red in colour
on both fronto parietal parts. There was a fracture on fronto
parietal bone measuring 9 cm, Subdural hemorrhage on both
fronto parietal parts measuring 110 CC, Subarachnoid
hemorrhage over whole brain which was red in colour,
Condensation on right frontal lobe of brain measuring 3 x 3
cm. He further stated that the cause of death was due to head
injury and the report given by him is Ex.P-16.
14. In case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya
& Another reported in (1976) 4 SCC 382 the Court succinctly
examined the distinction between Section 299 and Section
300 of the Indian Penal Code and in para 12 of the judgment
held as under:
8
CRA No. 735/2016
“12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, ‘culpable
homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ its specie. All
‘murder’ is culpable homicide’ but not vice-versa.
Speaking generally, ‘culpable homicide’ sans’
special characteristics of murder, is culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. For the
purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to
the gravity of this generic offence, the Code
practically recognises three degrees of culpable
homicide. The first is, what may be called, culpable
homicide of the first degree. This is the gravest
form of culpable homicide which is defined in
Section 300 as murder. The second may be termed
as ‘culpable homicide of the second degree’. This is
punishable under the 1 part of Section 304. Then
there is ‘culpable homicide of the third degree.
This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and
the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest
among the punishments provided for the three
grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is
punishable under the second Part of Section 304.”
15. It was further held that the difference between Clause (b) of
Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree
of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily
injury. The word “likely” in Clause (b) of Section 299 conveys
the sense of ‘probable’ as distinguished from a mere
9
CRA No. 735/2016
possibility. The words “bodily injury…sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death” mean that death will be the
“most probable” result of the injury having regard to the
ordinary course of nature.
16. It was laid down that the question whether is a murder or
culpable homicide not amount to murder has to be decided
on the suggestions. The first suggestion would be, whether
the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused
the death of another. Proof of such causal connection
between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the
second stage for considering whether that act of the accused
amounts to “culpable homicide” as defined in Section 299. If
the answer to this question is prima facie found in the
affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section
300, Penal Code is reached.
17. Therefore, taking into the facts into chronologically order, it
would lead to show that the intention and the knowledge on
the part of the appellant/ accused to cause death with the act
may cause death has not been established by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be unreasonable
10
CRA No. 735/2016
concluded that the appellant had intention to cause death of
the deceased.
18. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
Victim, further considering the evidence adduced by the
victim which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, I
am of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit any
illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-II
of the IPC.
19. In view of the foregoing, the judgment dated 31.05.2016
passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur
(C.G.) in ST No. 198/2014 whereby, the appellant was
convicted and sentenced as stated in Para 1 above, is hereby
affirmed.
20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
21. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds are
cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be
taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of
sentence. he is at liberty to assail the present judgment
passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the
11
CRA No. 735/2016
Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court
Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal
Services Committee.
22. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original
record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for
information and necessary action. Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Gowri/Shoaib