Chattisgarh High Court
Rajendra And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 May, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:20404
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 273 of 2008
1. Rajendra S/o Rampyare, age 27 years, Occupation -
Agriculturist.
2. Mohan S/o Ramsakal, age 27 years, Occupation - Laborer
3. Mahendra S/o Rampyare, age 37 years, Occupation -
Agriculturist.
4. Ramsakal S/o Mahipal, age 70 years, Occupation - Agriculturist.
All the resident of Village-Gargodi, P.S. - Basantpur, Distt.-
Sarguja (CG).
... Appellants
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Kendra (P.S.) - Basantpur,
Distt. Sarguja (CG)
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer.
2
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
Judgment On Board
05/05/2025
The appellants in this appeal are challenging the legality and
validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
18.2.2008 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC),
Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja (CG) in ST No. 38/2007 whereby each of
the appellants stands convicted under Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo RI for four years, pay a fine of Rs.100/- and
in default thereof to suffer additional SI for one week.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prior to the date of
incident, which took place on 22.4.2006, the accused persons had
promised one Mahadev Gond of giving him a pig in lieu of a goat but
they were not keeping their promise. Hence a meeting was convened
in this regard at Village-Gargodi where the accused persons were also
called upon. The accused persons, who were armed with club, were
standing under a tree behind the house of complainant Raju Singh
Gond (PW-1) and were calling the villagers to them who were present
in the said meeting. When PW-7 Lalman and PW-8 Mahadev went to
the accused, they beat them. On complainant’s intervention, he was
also beaten by the accused persons. Meanwhile, father of the
complainant namely Ramvriksh also reached the place of occurrence
and he too was assaulted by the accused persons by means of club as
3
a result of which Ramvriksha sustained injuries over head and other
parts of the body and succumbed to the same during the course of
treatment. As per postmortem report, cause of death was cardio-
respiratory failure as a result of head injury and its complication.
Pursuant to memorandum statements of the accused persons, clubs
were seized from them. After recording statements of the witnesses
and completing the formalities of investigation, the police filed charge
sheet under Section 302/34 of IPC before the concerned jurisdictional
Magistrate. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of
IPC, in alternative 302/34 of IPC against the accused persons, to which
they abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.
03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 16
witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section
313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances
appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence
and false implication. In their defence, they examined one Dr. Manju
Ekka as DW-1.
04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para
1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
05. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned
4
trial Court did not appreciate the fact that as per evidence of PW-13 PD
Minj (IO), FIR was lodged only against one Rajendra Singh alleging
that he assaulted the deceased with club whereas the other accused
persons were implicated in this case on exaggerated statements of the
witnesses. From perusal of the evidence it appears to be a case of free
fight between the complainant and the accused persons and it is also
evident that there was neither any motive or intention nor even
knowledge on the part of the accused that this sudden marpeet would
result in death of Ramvriksha. Whatever happened was at the spur of
moment during intervention by the deceased and as such, each of the
accused ought to have been held responsible for their individual act
whereas the learned trial Court held all of them guilty under Section
304 Part-II of IPC with the aid of Section 34 of IPC which is manifestly
illegal. It has also come on record in the evidence of PW-7 Lalman that
all the villagers were drunk and the quarrel ensued under the influence
of liquor. In this case, the accused persons also received injuries
during scuffle. He further submits that all the material witnesses hail
from one and the same caste and as such, are interested witnesses.
The witnesses to the memorandum and seizure also turned hostile. As
per medical evidence, if immediate medical aid was provided to the
deceased, there were chances of his survival. Thus, in the given set of
evidence, at the most offence under Section 324 of IPC is made out
against the accused persons. Therefore, the impugned judgment is
liable to be set aside or modified accordingly.
5
Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants submits that if
this ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellants
under Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC is proper, then considering the
facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident which
took place in the year 2006, the appeal is pending since 2008, they
have already remained in jail for about two years, their jail sentence
may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Reliance is
placed on the decision in Lakshmi Chand and another Vs. State of
UP reported in (2018) 9 SCC 704.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the
contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon
minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly
convicted and sentenced by the appellants by the impugned judgment
which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present
appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the
appellants were charged under Section 302 of IPC in the alternative
302/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
they were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment under
Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
6
09. PW-1 Raju Singh, son of the deceased, states in examination-in-
chief that on the date of incident Lalman and Mahadev were quarreling
in front of his house; the accused persons were beating Lalman and
when Ramvriksha (father of PW-1) intervened, he too was beaten with
club by the accused persons as a result of which he sustained injury on
head and face and died on 29th. He remained firm in cross-examination
and reiterated that it is the accused persons who committed marpeet
with his father as a result of which he died.
10. PW-2 Harmunder, PW-3 Rambas (wife of the deceased), PW-7
Lalman and PW-8 Mahadev have supported the statement of PW-1.
PW-4 Dilbodh, PW-5 Ustaj and PW-6 Vinod Kumar have not supported
the prosecution case but PW-5 and PW-6 saw the accused persons
running away from the place of occurrence.
11. PW-10 Dr. Rachna Arya medically examined Ramvriksha and
noticed injuries over his right cheek and head. She noticed that his
condition was critical and so after primary treatment referred to higher
center for further treatment vide medical report Ex.P/17.
12. PW-11 Dr. RB Prajapati initially examined injured Ramvriksha on
22.4.2006 and noticed lacerated wound on head and contusion over
temporal region and referred him to District Hospital, Ambikapur for
further treatment vide Ex.P/16.
7
13. PW-16 Dr. Ulhas Gonade conducted postmortem on the body of
the deceased on 29.4.2006 and gave his report Ex.P/18. In his opinion
the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to head injury and
its complications.
14. PW-12 Shivmangal Singh, ASI, prepared inquest memo Ex.P/5
before the witnesses and gave application for postmortem vide
Ex.P/18. PW-13 PD Minj, registered merg intimation Ex.P/20 and
conducted investigation and duly supported the prosecution case.
15. In view of the aforesaid unrebutted ocular evidence duly
corroborated by the medical evidence, it stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt that it is the accused/appellants who during the
course of quarrel with other persons assaulted the deceased with club
on his intervention and thereby committed culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, the manner in which the assault was made and the role
played by each of the accused persons, learned trial Court rightly held
each of them guilty under Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC. As such,
conviction of the appellants is hereby affirmed.
16. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, the manner in which the incident took place; the role
attributed to the appellants; the fact that the incident took place in the
year 2006; this appeal is pending since 2008 and they have remained
8
in jail for near about two years, this Court is of the opinion that no
fruitful purpose would be served in sending them back to jail at this
stage and the ends of justice would be served if their sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone.
17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining
conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC, their
jail sentence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by
them. They are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall
continue for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of
Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
MOHD by
Digitally signed
MOHD
Judge
AKHTAR KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
2025.05.06
KHAN 14:35:43
+0530Khan
[ad_1]
Source link