Partly allowed

Triloknath v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Dec 2014CRA/596/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a partial appeal against a murder conviction. The court held that while the appellant caused death with knowledge that it might result, the evidence did not establish specific intent to kill, altering the charge from murder to culpable homicide.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC; sentence reduced from life imprisonment to six years rigorous imprisonment; set-off for detention allowed.

Triloknath Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.i

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. 5^<-C' f201^f

¶3

APPELLANT ,.*

¶4

IN JAILt^^••••r^;^---"" ^^ ^;.;^^^••'

¶5

Triloknath S/o Bhailal Goyan, Aged about 28 years. R/o Village Araarpur, P.S. Baikunfhpur, District

¶6

(Civil 8s Revenue) Koriya, (C.G.)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RBSPONDENT

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh

¶10

Through- P.S. Baikunthpur,

¶11

(Civil & Revenue) Koriya, (C.G.)

¶12

S.T. No. 74/2012

¶13

Offence U/s. 302 of I.P.C.

¶14

CrimeNo. ^^20^1 H^U

¶15

Police Station- Baikunthpur, Koriya, (C.G.)

¶16

CRDVtINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF THE CODE OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CONVICTION

SENTENCE

U/s. 302 ofIPC

Imprisonment for life andto pay fine

¶22

ofRs. 1,000/- in default of payment further R.l. for 6 Months.

¶23

Being by the aggrieved impugned judgment and conviction z^. which has been passed by Sessioh Judge Baikunthpur (Koriya), {C.G.}, on dated 02-05-2014 passed in S.T. No 74/2012, convicting the appellants as afore-mention.

¶24

Appellants feel the impugned judgment and conviction hence this appeal is preferred against his convicdon and sentence on

¶25

following facts and grounds.

Page 1 of4

Cr.AppealNo.596-14'-

^ ^

HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR

¶30

bIVISIONBENCH:

¶31

Hon'bleShri T.P. Sharma <&

¶32

Hon'ble Shri I.S. Ubowe.ia. JJ

¶33

Criminal Appeal No.596/14

APPELLANT

Triloknath

(In^Jail)

RESPON&ENT State of Chhattisgarh

¶39

Present:

¶40

^ Mrs. Kiran Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

¶41

Mr. Mahesh Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶42

T.P. Shapmd.-J;-

¶43

ij.B.iini^ieBiiWi ' (04.12.2014)uiF i!J^,,l!iE%.,

¶44

Challenge in this appeal isto the judgment of convictTOnand order of sentence dated 02.Q5,20iW passed by the Sessions .ludge, Koriya (Baikunthpur) in S.T. iMa.'74/zl;^|whereby & whereunder the Sessions Judge after holding the |appel|drtf guilty for causing homicidal death, him under

¶45

amounting to murder, ^-p Kis' •father Bhaiyalal, convicted Section 302 of the IhdiantPehql Cocl6 (fof short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo RJ. for life' ^ ^in&'^of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo

¶46

•• additional R.I. for 06 months.

¶47

Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence the trial Court has convicted <& sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.

¶48

As per case of the prosecution, on 27.4.2012 at about 2.00 p.m. appellant was quarrelling with his father i.e. unfortunate deceased Bhaiyalal andin that process he assaulted on the head of his father twice by the bamboo stick lying on the spot. Sukhman Bai (PW-1), wife of the deceased and mother of the appellant, and other persons.witnessed the incident. They immediately took Bhaiyalal to the Sovernment Hospital, Baikunthpur. Sukhman Bai (PW-1), wife of the deceased, went to the Police Station Baikunthpur and lodged FIR vide Ex.P-1 under Section 324 & 506 of the IPC. Bhaiyalal was examined by br. A.K. Singh (PW-7) vide Ex.P-14 and

¶49

Page2of4

¶50

Cr. Appeal No.596 ^.

¶51

of 3?"x icm, 2i"x icm & 2" x lcm size over left side of the head with fresh bleeding. The injured was referred for surgery. They took him to &r. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur where he died during the course of treatment on 4.5.2012. Death was intimated to the police vide Ex.P-20. Police Station Maudhapara recorded merg vide Ex.P-21 and Police Station Baikunthpur recorded merg vide Ex.P-24. Police Station Maudhapara after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-2 prepared inquest over the dead body of deceased vide Ex.P-3. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-8. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur where Dr. S.N. Manjhi ,(PW-8) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-17 and noti ced fo l|ow|ngiiis'|n|{)|o||3BBn| u ra||;| ,a3" |°s'

¶52

Surgically stitches wound on left fronto'terBpil parietal region of 27 cm long having 28 stitches. i*.sr ^

¶53

• Another stitched wound o'plO cm long with llstrtStes^

¶54

Cut of parieto'teinpiopflral^pegioh of skull. <r

¶55

Contusion' of 10x4'^W^SWand^llxZKem. over fronto pareito and temporal bone.

¶56

Mode of death was cardtqHre3pjratory arrest as a result of head injuries. During thecourse of ii'ivestigation,;the appellant was taken into custody, he made disclosure sfdtement of .stick vide Ex.P-10 and the same was recovered at the instang&^ the:appellant vide Ex.P-11. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

¶57

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur for trial. In order to prove guilt of the appellant, the prosecution had examined as many as 16 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Sectipn 313 of Cr.P.C. where he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence & false implication.

¶58

The trial Court, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph-1 of this judgment.

¶59

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgmentand record of the trial Court.

¶60

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction is substantially based on the evidence of Babulal (PW-5) but his evidence does not inspire confidence and trustworthy. Even otherwise, on account of quarrel the appellant got annoyed, he picked-up the bamboo stick lying on the spot and caused injuries to his father. Initially i.e. on 27.4.2012, FIR was recorded under Sections 324 & 506 of the IPC and the deceased died on 4.5.2012 i.e. after more than seven days of the incident. Therefore, the act attributed to the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of,SeGtiqn|30^Pajg('-II of the IPC.

¶61

On the other|h8hyiearned Sta+elioUsptPopposed the appeal and submitted that evidence of Babulal (PW-5) is suf^icient for drawing inference that the appeHdnt had caused homicidcilal|lea'f;h of the deceased. Therefor6.by ^conyieting and sentencing the appellant as above, the trial Court hasjnot £oiniTOttedany illegality.

¶62

In order to appreciate argumehts ddvanced on behalf of the parties, we have toexamine the eyiclgnceAdclucedon behalf of the prosecution.

¶63

In the present case homicislalicled't'frof the deceased as a result of fatal injuries found on the bocly of the deceased has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. Even otherwise, from the evidence of Sukhman Bai (PW-1), Dipshikha Sai (PW-2), Pramila (PW-3), Sidhhnath (PW-4), Babulal (PW-5), FIR (Ex.P-1), Dr. A.K. Singh (PW-7), Injury report (Ex.P-14), t5r. S.N. Manjhi (PW-8) & autopsy report (Ex.P-17), it is established that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

¶64

As regards the complicity of appellant, conviction is substantially based on the evidence of Babutal (PW-5) and Sukman Bai (PW-1), wife of the deceased and mother of the appellant. As per evidence of Babulal (PW5), on hearing sound of quarrel, he visited house of the appellant where he saw that the appellant was demanding money from his father and thereafter he assaulted his father. The defence has cross-examined this witness at length but has not been able to elicit anything to

Page 4 of4

'.'>' •" f'S i"

Cr.AppealNo.596-1' ^

•^.^

evidence is sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant has caused homicidal death of his father.

¶72

As regards the question of motive, motive only aids in criminality and in case of direct evidence it loses its importance. Motive can be inferred on the basis of the weapon used, part of the body effected, nature of injury and other similar circumstances.

¶73

In the present case, as per caseof the prosecution, the appellant and the deceased were quarrelling, the appellant demanded money from his father and during •t|he eaiyR^ | qu|g^!,Ae picked-up the bamboo stick lying on the spot ancl1 cciused injuries o pltt|s|teqis! af the deceased. The

¶74

deceased was alive for seven days. He was surgiccitl^itFeMted. Evidence ddduced on behalf of tlie pFosecutionclearly revealed tha1|;the appellant has not caused injurieswi't'hiinten'fl'ocause death of the deceased, but at the time of causing injuries thiatfloo over the head of his father, the appellant was having definite 'knotvledge that by his act the deceased may die. Thus the qppellanf squarely comes within the purview of Section 304 Part-II 6-f the IRC; ^i

¶75

14.. While convicting and serrt'eRCingSfBe appellant under Section 302 of the

¶76

.IPC, the trial Court has not considered the aforesaid circumstances and thereby committed illegality.

¶77

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is altered into Section 304 Part-II of IPC and he is sentenced R.I. for 06 years. The appellant is in custody since 8.5.2012, he is entitled for set-off for the period of detention.

¶78

Certified copy as per rules.

¶79

Sd/-

¶80

T.P. Sharma roshan/Judge

¶81

Sd/Inder Singh Uboweja Judge

Triloknath v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Triloknath 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

Laxmi Kiran Mahant Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Smt.anju Sahu And Ors. Vs Officer Incharge And Ors.

Chandresh Bhoi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sandhya Goswami Vs Ayodhya Puri Goswami

Prem Yadav and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumar Patel and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh