Partly allowed

Malik Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2009CRA/753/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the appellant's act of using the blunt part of an axe while the victim was alone did not show intent to murder. Conviction under Section 307 IPC was unsustainable and was reduced to Section 326 IPC with a consequent reduction in sentence.

What did the court decide?

Conviction for Section 307 IPC altered to Section 326 IPC. Sentence reduced to two years, eight months, and eight days of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/.

Malik Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

¶1

HI6H CQURT QF CHHATnse^H AT BILASPUR Criinjnal Aepeal Na. 753 <rf 2007

¶2

APPELLANT CIn Jaii)

¶3

Malik P.am Sahu, S/o AAeghaveEnim Sahu, nged obout 45 year, R/o Viiiage Kociar, Poiice Station Chakarbhata Oistrict Bita^urC.e.

¶4

Versus

¶5

ftE^N&ENT The State of Chhcttisgarh, thr-ough; thg Police Station Chakarbhata, bistrict Bilaspur- (C.(5.)

¶6

•\

¶7

(Appeo! under Section 374,{2) of the Code &f Criminal Procedure, 1973)

¶8

. (SB;, ton'blft Mr. T.P. Shama. J.)

¶9

¶10

Present:

¶11

Mr.ftaltesh Pcndey, counsel for the appelldnt.

¶12

Mr.AkkiI Mishra, Deputy fiovernment Advocate for the State/respondent.

¶13

JU&6M6NT

¶14

^aased on 3'd Sepfember, 2009)

¶15

¶16

Th's appenl is directed against the Judgment of conyiction and order pf sentence dated 26.6.2007 pas^d by the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Tria! No.100/2007 whereby and whereunder learned Sessions Judge after holding the oppellant guitt" for the offence pufflshable tinder Sectipn 307 of the Indion Penal Code sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years oaid to poy afine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further- undergo r'igorous imprisonment ftfr 3 months.

¶17

Judgmentof conyiction and order of sen+aice !S challenged on the ground that without there being an iota of eyidence of commission of cdusing dangerous or fntal injuries to iniured Smt.Sukhtnatt Bai, •rtie Gourt-belew has conyicted and ssntenced the appetlant as cforemsntioned ond thereby commit+ed illagotity.

¶18

II -^f life

¶19

Case of the in bfief, is that the nppellant wAio !S prosecution, fathep-in-lo.w of injured Swt- SukhmatiBai yw-l) wastaking her to her inaterrwl yillage on 23.1.2007 <»+about 8.45 p.m-, near village Xadar, police s'tat'on Chak<u'bhatn, the cypellant assaulted her by axe and eoused

¶20

—2.—

¶21

lccerated wound vver her sccipita! reg'on of 3 cm. x i- cm. x bone deep, laeented wound over right uppsr eye brow of 1 cm, x i em, x bone cteep and tacerated wound mw right side near ear ef 1 cm, x i- cm ?< bone deep. The appeliant went from the. spot. After sometime viltagerscame vrfiom she nar-rated the incident. Th.ey took her to the stetion poljce Chakarbho.t" where she lodged the F.I-R. (Ex.P/i). Her blood stand bleuse was sei-zed vide Ex.P/2. She was sent for medical examhiation and the cforesaid injuries were fourid by Dr.Ani! Kumar- (PW-10) yide Ex.P/19. .Accused was taken into custody nnd on the basis of his disclosur® stn-hsiwent yide E?<-P/3, tfxe was recovered vide Ex.P/4. Blood stond soil and plai" soil were re'coyei^d from the pfnce of mcident yida Ex.P/5. Spot map was prepared by gatwnri vide E.K.P/7. Investigating officer- has atso prepared the spot map E?<.P/10. Ar-ticfes were sent for cheftiical examination.

¶22

S'hatements of the witnesses were recorded under- Seetion 161 of^•the Code of Cri>ninal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code.')dnd irfter- ampfetionof investigction.charge sheet wns filed before the Judicinl Magistra'tB Pir-st Ctass, Bitnspur who in turn cominitted the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur.

¶23

•t^i

¶24

In order to proye Ihe guitt of the accused/appellent, the grosecution has examined as iti(»ny as 10 witnesses. Statement of the cccu^d was recor-ded under Section 313 of the Code where he denjed the circumstances oppenring against him and innocency and fato implicntion is pleaded.

¶25

Learned Sessions Judge after affording on opportunily of hearing to the parties,^{conyictedandsentencedthe appetlant as afor'ementioned.}

¶26

I have he"t-d Shri Rnkesh Pandey, counse.1 for the appellctnt and Shri Akhit Mishca, beputy fioyemrnent Adyocate for the $tate./resp ndent and

¶27

perused the Judament impugned and recor-ds of the court befow.

lii^r'rni

^^.TiB-a^SSiSGEB;

-^-

Learned counse! for the appellont crgues that the appsltant is father-in-law of -rtie injured Smt.Sukhmati Bai (PW-1) who used to go hermaternal home frequentty. On the date of jncident, the appellant was taking her- to her matemal viltaoe. At 8.4S p-m- white she was going to he.r matemai yillage, sh® fel! down and receiyed in iuries. Learned counal fur'ther' submits that no grieyous or dangerous injuries were, caused by the appelkmt. According to the F-I-R-, the present dppelbnt has caused injuries by using btunt part' of <axe shows the intention of causing tnjuries.

¶33

0" •rtie other hand, judgment impugned is supported on behalf of the ' State./r'espondent and argugs that injuries wer'e not grieyous or dangerous ^ in nature. The appellant has iised blunt pnrt ofwve for causing injuries.

¶34

10.In order to appreciote the contentions of the par+ies, I have examined the eyidence acfduced on beholf of the prosecution. Injured Smt.Sukhnwti Bai(PW-l), daughter-in-law of the- appelhmt, hns deposecf that she was going to matemal village with the <ypellant, during the cbur'^ of journey when she was removin9 thorn from her foot, at that time, theiypellont assaulted her by oxe. She became unconscious. pna!!y, she has toclged the report. Laxmi Prasad Chouhan (PW-2), Meghnalh 0'W-3) fflid Jaleshwnr (PW-8) haye deposed thnt they heard that the oppellant has assaultsd his daughter-in-hw. They went to the place of incident where 1+iey saw that Smt.Sukhmati Bai was icaying unconscious. Or.Anit Kumar (PW-10) heis deposed that he has exammed the injured on 23.1.2007 and found the afowsaid injuries.

¶35

The prosecution has not adduced any eyjdsnce to show that injur'tes were AmgeF'ous or fatal in na+une. F.I.R. reyeals that the nppetiont has caused injuries by using blunt part of axe. Considering (fep+h of three injuries which were borie deep oyer the head, the injuries wer-e grievous jn ftature by hlunt part of we. Eyiderfce of injured Smt.Sukhmati Bai (PW-1) is sufficient for di'awing inference that the present <apetlant has caused Iniunes,

¶36

-^--

¶37

After a^preciating •tt'e eyidence available on record, learned Court beiow hns convic+ed -rtie appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years cmd to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in defauit of payment of fine to fur-ther under-go rigorous jjnprisonment for 3 months.

¶38

IS.Tckino into consideratiorrthe fact that the uppettant has used blurit part ofaxe when the comptamant was alone at 8.45 p-n>. haying opportunity for causing more injuries or- serious injuries and nature of injur-ies, the nct of the appellont does not tr-aye! bsyond the scope of Section 323 of the Indian Penai Code. Learned Court below has not considei'ed the most materisl aspect ofjhecd|e md thereby committed 'sllegalit" by conyicting the t^peltant fo>- the:bffence punishtible under Section307 of the Stdian Penal Code.

¶39

¶40

14-Forthe foregoing reasons, the appea! js part'lyalowsd.Convictionofthe appe!lant for ttie offence punishable under Sectiorr 307 of •the Inctian Pennl Code is here.by altered into Section 326 of the Tneljon Penal Code ond his sentenc« is als" reduced from rigor-ous iinprisohment for 7 years to the period atrendy undergone j.e. 2 yecu's, 8 months and 8 daysand to pay g fine of Rs.BOp/-;in default of payment of fine, he sha!l further

¶41

undergo r-igorous imprisoninent for 3 nionths.

¶42

Bi'-

¶43

Sd/T.P.Sharma Judge

¶44

E.ISiS3SgS[^^

Malik Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malik Ram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagmohan Vs the State of M.P.

Jaishri Ghasi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vitthal Bhai Patel Vs Pradeep Kumar Trivedi

Johara Bibi Vs G.L. Church

Uma Shankar Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Atma Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh