Partly allowed

Gulab Yadav and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Nov 2014CRA/118/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh partly allowed the appeal against murder and unlawful assembly convictions. Finding no evidence that the common object was to kill, the court quashed murder charges and reconvicted the appellants under Section 325 IPC, reducing the sentence to eighteen months.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 148/302/149 IPC set aside. Reconvicted under Section 325/149 IPC with imprintment for one and half years. Released forthwith.

Gulab Yadav and Ors. Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

u m ‘v:

¶2

¶3

1 HIGH^{COURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR}

¶4

Criminal^{AggealNo.118of2011}

¶5

APPELLANTSW’—QHED

¶6

1 Guiab^Yadav

¶7

NbW0103Rambilas Pargas @^Prakash Paras^Yadav

Kailash Bali

Versus

RESPONDENT

State of Chhattisgarh,^throughthe P.S. Kamleshwarpur.^{DistrictSurguja(C.G.)}

¶12

12)^{OFTHECODEOFCRIMINAL} APPEALS^{UNDERSECTION374} PROCEDURE

¶13

Hon. Shri^{T.P.Sharmaand} Coram: Hon.^{ShriI.S.Uboweja,JJ.}

¶14

pRESENTl Smt. Hamida^{Siddiqui,counselfortheappellants.}

¶15

Mr. Mahesh^{Mishra,P.L.fortheState.}

¶16

JHDGMENT , (Passed^{on25-11-201 4)}

Per T.P.Sharma,^J.

r a re er e

is to^the judgment^{ofconvictionandorder} Challenge^inthisappeal by the 4"‘ Additional Sessions of sentence dated 22.01.2011 passed Ambikapur in S.T.No. 372 of 2008 wherebyrand Judge (F.T.C.), for forming unlawful whereunder after holding the appellants guilty — Ramdular andⁱⁿ assembly^{havingcommonobject} to kill the^deceased furtherance^{ofcommonobjectandformationofunlawfulrassembly,caused} homicidal death amounting to murder of Ramdular, the Court below convicted^{theappellantsunderSection147,148and302/149ofthel.P.C.} and sentenced^{themtoRlforoneyeareachunderSections147and148}

¶21

2 of the l.P.C. and Iife imprisonment under Section 302/149 of the l.P.C. with fine of Rs.1000/—^{oneachcountand} in default to pay^{fineamount,‘} they shall undergo^{additionalrigorousimprisonmentforfourmonthseach.}

¶22

The conviction is impugned on the ground^{thatwithouttherebeing} any iota of evidence, the Court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned^{andtherebycommittedillegality.}

¶23

As per^case of the prosecution, on fateful day of 03.09.2008 at about 8.00 am,^{onaccountofcattlehouse,theappellantsholdingsticks} and deadly weapons^{rushedtowardsthedeceasedRamdularandcaused} injury to Ramdular, as^{aresultofwhich,Ramdularfelldownandbecame} unconscious. He was brought to^{Kamleshwarpur} police^{stationat12.40} pm. Initially, F.l.R. under Sections 147, 148 and 307 of the l.P.C. was recorded at the instance^{ofP.W.6BudhuYadav,fatherofRamdularand} Ramdular was sent^{toPrimaryHealth} Center, Block Mainpat,^wherehe was examined by Dr.R.S.Singh P.W.4 and found him dead and then P.W.4 Dr. R.S.Singh informed the police vide Ex.P.11. Merg was recorded vide^Ex.P.13.

¶24

investigation Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning witnesses vide Ex.P.9, inquest over the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P.10. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Center,^{Kamleshwarpur.} P.W.4 Dr. R.S.Singh^{conductedautopsy} vide Ex.P.12 and found one lacerated^{woundof6x5inchoveranterio-} posterior part^{oftheheadwithswellingwithhaematoma.} Mode of death was due to coma^{asaresultofheadinjury.}

¶25

¶26

Police conducted investigation and finaiiy charge sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C., Ambikapur, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for its trial. 6. in order to prove the guilt of the appellants, prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and innocence and faise implication in crime in question^was claimed.

¶27

After providing an opportunity to the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementiéned.

¶28

During pendency of the appeal, appellant No.6 ~ Lalman has died. As per submission of counsel for the appellants, appellants — Gulab and Rambilas are in custody till today whereas remaining appellants are ’on bail. 9. ‘ We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of trial Court and the judgment impugned.

¶29

Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that this is a case of single blow. Doctor conducting the autopsy had not noticed any grievous injury. Deceased was alive for 5 hours even after receiving injury, which was caused to him at 8.00 hours and he died at about 3.45 pm. Medical aid was not provided to him. All the appellants were holding weapons but they have not caused repeated

¶30

¶31

¶32

notice bone injury. Evidence of P.W.4 Dr. R.S. Singh and evidence of PIW.6‘ Budhu Yadav and P.W.8 Paras Yadav reveal that only one injury has been caused although all the appellants rushed towards deceased and assaulted the deceased. There was some dispute relating to cattle house. Evidence of these witnesses further reveal that the appellants have formed unlawful assembly and their common object was not to kill the deceased but to teach a lesson to deceased. Out‘ of seven accused/appellants, one has caused grievous injury upon the head. injury noticed by the Doctor was grievous injury. The evidence of aforesaid witnesses does not reveal that all the appellants have not caused homicidai death of'the deceased in furtherance of common object to kill him. ln absence of aforesaid evidence and in the absence of appellants having armed with deadly weapons, the conviction of the appellants under Section 148 and 302/149 of the i.P.C. is not sustainable in law whereas conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 147 of the l.P.C. is sustainable and is hereby affirmed.

¶33

gonseduently, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants under Section 148 of the l.P.C. and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. Likewise, their conviction under Section 302/149 of the l.P.C. and the sentence awarded thereunder is hereby altered to Section 325/149 of the l.P.C. and they are sentenced to imprisonment for one and half years. They have already suffered jail sentence for more than one and half years to the effect that atl the' appellants shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. i Sdll T.P. Sharma x i Sdli lnder Singh Uboweja judge i Judge t \ i

Gulab Yadav and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Yadav and Ors. 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

The Managing Director,Zila Vanopaj Sahakari Union Ltd., Korea Vs Mst. Munni Kausar and Ors.

Kehat @ Bilkhi Nageshiya and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Bachhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Pinjani Vs Sawant Dheewar and Others

Ramkala and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Poos Ram Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh