Partly allowed

Manbodh and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Feb 2016CRA/1053/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of criminal appeals challenging conviction under IPC Sections 323, 304 Part-I and sentence by Trial Court. The court allowed appeals partially by reducing imprisonment terms for all three appellants to the period already undergone, affirmed fines, and released them on bail.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; substantive jail sentences reduced to period already undergone; fines affirmed; appellants released on bail for six months.

Manbodh and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR *COURT HIG OF CHHATTISGARH,^BILASPUR V Criminal Appeal No.1053^of200“

¶2

Manbbdh, S/o.^{Jaikaran,agedabout} 28 years,^Occupation AgricUltural

¶3

Gharbharan S/o. Jokhu aged about 6O years,^Occupation agricultural Both R/o Village Slngra PS Paratappur District Surguja

(CG)

--——Appellants

Versus

State of Chhatttsgarh Through PS Pratappur Distt SurgUJa

¶8

(CG)

¶9

—-- Respondent

¶10

. AND 'lAp’peal Crim' No.1060 of^200“

¶11

Purushottam S/o Gharbharan aged about 22 years Occupation Agncultural R/o Village Singra PS Pratappur district Surgwa (CG) x

¶12

‘ Versus

¶13

State of Chhattlsgarh Through PS Pratappur dlstt Surguja

¶14

(CG)

¶15

w Respondent

¶16

Shri Aditya Khare, coUnsel^{fortheappellantsinCr.A.} No 1053/08 Shri Bhupendra^Singh counsel for the^{appellantInCrA} No 1060/2008

¶17

Smt M Asha Panel Lawyerforthe^{State/respondent.}

¶18

Hon‘ble Shri Justice^{ChandraBhushanBajpai}

¶19

Judgment On^Board

¶20

04 02 2016

¶21

Criminal Appeal No1053 of 2008 filed on behalf of appellants Manbodh and Gharbharan and Criminal Appeal

¶22

¶23

No.1060 of 2008 fiied on Eiéhaif of appeHam§Purushcttam^against the commo jtjdgment'^daied 27.11.2008 bassed by Additio‘lnal fif Sessions Jigidgé (FTC), Piratappur, Distt. Surguja are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in these appeals are the judgment^ofconviction and order dated 27.11.2008 passed by Additional of sentence Sessions Judge (FTC),^Pr'atappur, Distt. Surguja in Sessions^Trial ‘Whereunder No.31/08 vjlhereby and the learned Additional Sessions JUdge after^{holdingtheappellants} guilty,^convictedand

¶24

sentenced th'em in the folloirving manner:

¶25

>Sl. No. yo1.	Name of applicant	the	Com/iction H	Sentence ‘ aha
l ‘	Man‘bodh l u . '	L '	c zalpo {V V e éiié	Ri fer oné year ^to pay ^{fine of Rs.500/7;} in default, Rl for one month.
O2. l l	Gharbharan v; h '~ , _		Section 323 ^IPC ‘ _ V	Rl for one year and ^to ‘ pay ^{fine of Rs.500/—. in} ‘ idefault, Rl for one ^month
'03. i - l l	Punishouam l ‘ ‘		Section 304 ^Part—i IPC	^{-Ri for 1o}years ^{and to} pay fine of Rs;1000/—, ‘in default, RI for three [months
T	hetrial Court	^furth	^{er directed to awar}	^{d the benefit of set of}

¶26

i under Section^{428oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure} 1973 (for 11 07 short 'the Code ) to the accused appellant Manbodh from O1 to 27.03.08i (4^months 27 days) accused appellant Gharbharan from O1 11 07 to 27308 (4 months 27 days) and accused appellant^{Purushottanfrom01} 11 07 to till date (8 years^3months and 4 days) gfor^the period^{underdetention.}

¶27

\xkk

¶28

vp”

¶29

Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there g being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned, thereby committed illegality. 4. As per thetcase of the prosecution, on 30.7.2007,^deceased Mansai assaulted his mother thrice with slipper. The accused appellants came on the spot and appellants Manbodh and Gharmaran assaulted Mansai With hands^and fists and appellant Purushottam3‘assaulted Mansai with stick; Thereafter Mansai died. The^imatter was informed to Pratapur police,^who in turn registered merg intimation (Ex-PH 0), after giving^notice (Ex-PH) & (Ex‘P/1^{3)tothewitnesses} q^{uest,conductedinquestvideEx—} P/2 thereafter dead bdo f Zdeceased Mansai was sent .for postmortem to Community Heaith Centre Pratapur Dr J. Ekka (PW⁶⁾ after conductin g autosyp gave his report (Ex^P/6) Ihe First Information Report (Ex^P/11) was lodged against all-the appellants. Police prepared spot map (Ex-P/12). Patwari prepared spot map (Ex-P/8). After completion of investigation, \ charge has :‘been filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pratappur, who in turn committed the case of the Court of Sessions Su-rguja, Ambikapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge received‘the case ongtransfer and conducted the^trial. 5. ln order to prove the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witness in^all. The appellants Were examined uh‘der Section 313 of the Code, wherein^{theydeniedthe}

¶30

¶31

gaind 'égainst circumstané’fs appearing them, pleaded innocence :-§ ‘ g false implicaiidh in Crimeⁱⁿ question.

¶32

Afterfef'f‘cirding opp‘bitunity of hearing”; to the parties, {he ' l'ea‘rned tria‘i‘iJudge held that accused appellants Manbodh and Gharbharan have committed offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution^hassucceeded to prove the offence under^Section304 Part—l of the IPC against^accused appellant PUrushottam, thereby the trial Court convicted and sentenced‘th-‘e appellants^{as“aforementioned;}

¶33

7.' l have’ heard counsel for the parties and perused the " V w records of the court belo 'he 8. Learned couh‘séi ii appellants Manbedh and e Gharbaharan submits thathl’ooking to the entire facts and circumstances,^{heisnotassail‘ingthecriminalappealwithrespect} iconviCtion^[and ” ofjudgmentbf he is confining his arguments^only Both the appellants^wereheld guilty^for on the. point^ofsentence. the offence'id'nder^Section323 of the IPC^and the State has not preferred^an?appeal again-st these appeals for enhancement of their sentences. They are^first offenders,^{theaccusedappellants} and the deceased belong to same family, they have already served the sentence^during'trial i.e. from 01.1^1.2007to 27.03 (four months and; 27^days). They have deposited^{thefineamount,the} incident^is about^morethan8 years old. The incident^happened in a heat of passion,^{asthedeceasedassaulted} his mother thrice they‘ retaliated^and assaulted the^{deceasedbyhands} “byvsvlipper,

¶34

. 5

¶35

and fists. EThe appellants may be given an opportunitytby éentenc‘mg them^forthe pericd^{alreadyundergonebythemahd} it would be stifficient^{fortheactcommittedbythem.}

¶36

Learned counsel for appellant Purus‘hottam submits that looking to the entire facts and^{circumstances,} he is not assailing the instant criminal appeal^on its merits regarding his conviction under Section 304 Part—l^oftheIPC. This appellant^{isin-jailsince} 01.1 1 .2007 thereby^{hehas'completedmajor} part^{ofthesentence} for about 8^lyears, three months and^fourdays, The incident is about 8 years old, this appellant has^nocriminal antecedent^and 's on account-30f assault by>d e ed Mansai to his mother'by slipper, in a; sudden develope’d’anger, the appellant assaulted deceased Mansai and thereby” caused the offence of culpable homicide not amountingito‘ murder. Looking to the period of I detention and further^{facts;~‘h‘emaybesentencedaccordingly.} 10. Per contra, counsel'for the State in both the appeals opposed the'arguments^{advancedinthisbehalfandwouldsubmit} that looking to the act of the appellants, judgment of conviction and senten‘Ce is well fdUnded and there is. no scope'for interference} Hence, both‘the appeals maybe^dismissed as3in0t maintainable;

¶37

For the purpose of^{appreciationontheargumentsadvanced} on behalf of‘the parties, l have perused the evidence^adduced:by the prosecutiOn during trial!

¶38

¶39

i2, On the entire perusal of the eVIdence^adduced this Court Is of the View that the tnal^{Courthasnotcommittedanyinegahtyor} I Impropnety whHe conVIctmg all the appellants as aforementloned and in the considered^{Viewofthis‘Court,thetrialCourthasrightly} convicted all the three appellants for the offence committed by / them.

¶40

lt is apparent that the prosecution i.e. the respondent has not preferred any appeal for enhancement of the sentence^and conviction awarded^{bythetrialCourt.} 14. So far as the quantum^ofsentence passed^{bythetrialCourt} against the^{appellantsManbodhandGharbhahar} they have been « convrcted for the offen c erSection³²³ of the IPC as they Vn assaulted deceased Mansai by hands and fists and have been . sentenced Rl^forone year^andto pay^Rs500/-each They have already served^{thesentencetothetuneoffourmonthsandtwenty/} ' 'r‘hinirnum seven days.’ There is no sentence prescribed for the above mentioned offence, they are first offenders, the incident happen-ed^{withinthefamily‘members.} Looking to the entire^facts and circumstances and considering the facts that both the appellants have deposited the entire fine amount, it wouldbe appropriate‘:to'sentence both the appellants to undergo the imprisonment for the period already undergone by them for the substantive jail sentence. » To this extent, Cr.A. No.1053/O8‘ is liable to be alloWed in part and judgment passed^{bythetrialCourt} requtres^interference

¶41

¶42

t ,'

¶43

7 15. So far as quantum of sentences against appellant Purushottam the respondent/State has not filed any crlmma| appeal for enhancement^{ofthesentence} Appeilant Purushottam is also belongs to the same family and on account of^sudden 'of development; dispute and disrespect the mother of the deceased, this appellant^{assaultedthedeceasedbyclub'.} For hls act, the trial Court rightly convicted^{himunderSection304Part—l} of the IPC;~_ This appellant has servedlthe major part of the sentence of78] years three months and four days till today. Looking to the entire^{factsandcircumstances,the} period^already undergone by appellant Purushottam^{wouldservethe} purpose

¶44

Conse'quentlygCrali Appeal No1053/2008 is hereyb allowed in part Judgment of conVIction passed against both appellants N/lanbodh and Gharbharan also sentence of fine awarded to both-ofith‘em byrthe‘trial Court are hereby^affirmed. So far as substantive jail^{sentencesawarded} to both the above appellants afe concerned, it is modified and^{insteadofRlforohe} year,^both th‘e appellants^{aresentencedtoundergoimprisonment} for the period already^{undergonebythem.} They are reported^to be on bail. fhey^{besetatlibertyforthwith.} Their bail bonds shall viper continue for] further period of six months from today as requirement pf Section^{437AoftheCode.}

¶45

Criminal Appeal No.1060/08 is hereby allowed in pfart. Judgment of conviction and fine sentence awarded by the trial Court^is hereby^affirmed. For the substantive jail^{sentences,Rlfor}

¶46

l H lllllllll llllllll CF0000069228

¶47

¶48

ten years the same ls modmed and reduced to the penod akeady undergone by hlm The appellant Is reported to be In Jail He be released forthWIth if not reqUIred In any other case

¶49

Sd/—

¶50

(Chandra^{BhushanBajpai)} JUDGE

¶51

Bini

Manbodh and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manbodh and Anr. 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

Dilip Chakravorty Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Barat Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pushpa Dey Vs Sanjay Dey

Purshottam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Danaro @ Janardan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kaushaliya Bai Vs Bisahu Ram And Anr.