The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the appellant's bail and allowed the appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that the injured parts of the defense's appeal evidence were misleading and that there was motive.
Bail cancelled; Appellant directed to serve remaining sentence of life imprisonment plus fine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURTOFICHHATTISGARH BILASPUR .CRA No. 94/2004
ChandraBhanSingh
Ve rs‘u s
.~;
‘o r consideration ( SdlChandra Bhushan Bajpai ! Judge
4—8—201 6
Hnn'hlp, Shri Justice Pras ha
SdlPrashantKumarMishra Judge
Post for 05—08—201 6 Sd/— Chandra BhushanB‘ajpai Judge "‘ 04-08-2016
\i
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR
CRA No. 94/2004 Chandra Bhan Singh, aged about 55 years, S/o. Udhan, R/o. ViHage Majurdhaki, Thana Ramkola, Distt. Sarguja (CG) ———— Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Ramkola, Distt. Sarguja (CG) -——— Respondent
a: ‘ ttForappellant :Mr. Sanjay Agrawat, counse or ForRespondent : Mr. Vive k i
DB: HON'BLE SHRI PRA 'R HON'BLE SHRI CHA_
Per Bajpai, J 05/08/2016
2
fa
abdomenofdeceasedBasantramandthereafterthevictim fled from the spot. When Ghasirarh (P.W.1) made a search of his son Basantram,henoticedBasantram lying on the ground in the kitchen of one Ramkishan, abdominal organ came out from the garden wound. Thereafter he informed the Sarpanch and viliagers. They came andsaw Basantram dead.Thereafteron10—10—2002,Ghasiram traveled 35 km to reach Police Station Ramkola having (P.W.1) jurisdictionand lodged FIR Ex. P=j, whichwas registered in Crime No. 69/2002. During investigation.inquestwas prepared and body was s‘en't forautopsy.Dr.R.L.Thakur(P.W.18)cOnductedautopsyand gave,hisreportEx.P-4.Hefoundfollowinginjurie s ” ‘ i; lnéisedwound-“’si i 1cmobliqueonleftsi’d of abdomen. Blood clot ongw'o ii. incised wound X2 x 16 cmobliquebelowumbilical region. Blood cl und.
" \Tiijx...
\
He denied the charges and prayedfortrial.
mentioned in para 1 oft h' d gment. o ntended that :
i. the extra judiC I n - made before father of the deceased is not free from dou a weak type of evidence. P.W. 1 is his evidence cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by ii. P.W. 4 SUKhlal;~s g ed eye—witness in cross—examination has stated that he informed the-police the factsnarratedtohimbythe village kotwar. Therefore, P.W. 4 Sukhlal cannot be said to be the personwhohadwitnessedtheincident. iii. the date on which the spear was sent for examination to the autopsy surgeon is mentioned in the memo Ex. P—12 as 13—12—2002 whereas date on the doctor's report after examinationismentionedas 22-11-2002 thereby it appears that without any article sent for physicalexamination,P.W.18 gavehisreportEx.P—12—A. iv. it is surfaced from the statement of many witnesses that before the incident, the deceased and the accused had consumed liquor. Looking to other facts also, possibilitythatthe deceased, sustained injuries by falling on the ground may not be ruled out. v. if the deceased would have been taken for treatment immediately after the incident, there might be possibility of his survival.
vi. there was no motive for the offence. vii. In alternate, it is (submitted that there was only two incised wounds over the abdomen and below umbilical region. It is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was chased and thereafter assaulted. Therefore, it may be held that the accused/appellant assaulted the deceased in a sudden quarrel without pre-meditation and without undue advantage or without acting in a cruel or unusual manner, therefore, at the most‘the act of the accused/appellant may fall within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC and as he had 'conviCted,for no‘iHtention or knowledge, he may be offence under Slec‘ti‘On 302 Part l or Part ll of the IPC and not b e viii. teamed co u‘ e llant placed re ceton Sukhbir Singh—v— State of H d in (2002)3 SCC 327 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court g with Exception 4 to Section 300, “ IPC, observed that s implies mutual provocation and the time gap between ther‘q the fight should be minimum so as not to give enoughtime‘fo e passion to subside and the accused to come to normalcy, Whe c used had after the quarrel gone to his house a street away and returned within a few minutes with other accused to pick up a fight with the deceased, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC was attracted and the accused must be convicted under Section 304 part i instead of under Section 302. lt was further held that the accused should not have acted in a cruel and unusual manner but all fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be treated as cruel or unusual for the purpose of Exception 4. He further placed reliance on Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad —v- State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 6 SCC 770. It was a case in which the accused angered by barking of dog at him and started beating the dog with iron rod that he was carrying. The deceased owner of dog objected to the beating and the same led to scuffle ‘between parties.Appellant hit the deceased with iron rod on head which caused injuries which proved to be fatal four days later. There was no premeditation or no prior enmity or motive to commit the r\offence, no lethal weapon was used and no second blow/injury was
rx
given once deceased collapsed on the ground. ln these circumstances, the Hon‘hle Apex Court observed that no act was committed in unusual or cruel manner. Further use of words by appellant that if deceased did not keep quiet he too would be beaten like a dog indicated that intention was only to beat up deceased and not to kill him. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC is available to the appellant. Conviction by lower courts under SeCtion 302 Was altered to one under Section 304 part ll ofthe IPC.
$t‘ “lt IX. is submitted that the present case i s d with the above Case'laws hence it is prayed that the pp filed by the accused/appellant Mma a llcwed or in alter n_ convicted under Secti 7. Per contra, learned c‘ h e respondent/State submittedthat the place of incident i y km away from the concerned police. station Ramkola. T h ' int P.W. 1 Ghasiram, lodger of the FIR report on next day which goes to show that there was n’oundue-delay in lodging the FIR. In the FIR he specifically said that the accUsed/appellant confessed before him about the incident and he also saw the accused/appellant armed with spear immediately after the incident and also when he made a search of his son he saw his son lying dead ing-the kitchen garden of one Ram Kishan which goes to show that there is no scope for false implication. There is nothing on record to show as to why the father of the deceased would save real assailant and implicate an innocent person. He further submits that in chemical analysis, FSL confirmed the presence of blood in the spear used in the crime. lt is an additional circumstance. Place of incident i.e. village Majur Dhakki is a forest village. There was no means of communication and transportation. The deceased died instantaneously. There was nofacility to take the deceased to nearest hospital which is far away even from police station. The prosecution has duly proved its case beyond probable doubt. Two blows over the abdomen and the force with which they \‘\\were caused go to show it was not the case of sudden provocation
@ 6
without pre—meditation. Hence the judgment of the trial Court is well founded.
‘14 He is a hearsay witness for the later incident P.W. Chandrama Singh Rajput has seized the clothes of the deceased and also recorded statement of the witnesses andfiled thechargesheetbefore the court. P.W. 15 Head Constable Surjan RamhasrecordedFIREx. P—l, also prepared spot map Ex. P—Q, seized blood stained soil and other articles vide Ex. P-5, also seized spearfrom accusedvideEX.P— 2, prepared inquest Ex. P—4, sent the seized spear for examination and during investigation arrested the accused appellant, recorded statements of the witnesses under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. P.Wl 17 Ran%ai is‘the‘ Wife of the deceased; She is ,a s ay witness. P.W. 158 Dr; Ramlal Thakur has conducted autopsy a n portEX.P—14 ‘ oft-he” noticed two inj u m en. He opined t h, e cause of ideath is shock d u leeding and incrsed wound on abdomen and abd o used by hard and sharp object. He also examined the sp e v e report Ex. P—12—A. 10. Close scrutiny .idence makes it clear that P.W. 4 ‘a Sukhlal, the eye~witnes h‘a ined very firm during his crossexamination. There wash questionspecificallyaskedtothiswitness that he had not seen the accused/appellant assaulting thedeceased. He is an independent witness. There is no reason to discredit his evidence. He is an eye—witness as per Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. During court examination, he was not‘confronted with the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court has not committed any error in believing on the statement ofP.W.4.Sofarasconsumptionof liquor by the deceased or any other persons or any conduct of the deceased after consuming liquor in the village is concerned, in the postmortemreportEx.P-14,thedoctorhasnotnoticedanysymptom of alcohol in the intestine or in his body. Therefore since medical evidence on this aspect has to be given more weightage, the J statement of the witness that the deceased had consumed liquor may not be taken as correct, Even otherwise, mere consumption of liquor by the deceased does not make the case of the prosecution suspicious or doubtful. After minute examination of evidence P.W. 1 ‘;‘§:@asiram though he was father of the deceased, it is clear that the \
accused/appellant made extra judicial confession before him and immediately without undue deiay he reached to the police station which was about35kmawayfromhisforestVillageandlodgedreport. Defence has notbeenabletobringonrecordastowhyhewillleave the real culpritandimplicatetheaccused/appellant. ln the considered View of this Court, his statement cannot be doubted in view of promptly lodged FIR i.e. on very next day. In absence of any suggestion and otherfacts,we areoftheviewthatstatementofPW. 1 Ghasiram regarding the confession of the accused/appellant is truStWorthy. Further point to note is; that helii ediately made a searchforhis‘sonandfoundhissonlyingde a r kitchen garden ‘ ie ofongRam Kishan Wh couple thesetwo ce, the extra judicial confession deceased, we find that dicial confession was voluntaryina natural manner imm e Fthe incident.
11 .There was one more weentheaccused/appellantand the deceased priortothe- p ‘in I Thereafter present Ci ap'pened. Thereafter the accused/ appellant on his ownCamewithspearinhishandandassaultedtwice over the bodyofthedeceased in the abdomen. This cannotbetaken as sudden fight without pre—meditation and without intention or knowledge. The nature of the injury and the manner in which the .. incident happened gotoshowthattheaccusedwashavingmotive in the light of earlier disputeandheassaultedthedeceasedina planned manner and the accused appellant fled from the spot in a natural reaction to save himself.Theaccused/appellantsufficiently gavetwo penetratedwound resulting in death of the deceased and intestine came out andwithin‘notime the deceased died. These facts go to show the force appliedbytheaccused/appellantandalsotheintention to commit murder ofthedeceased.
12; lt is not suggestedtoP.W.4Sukhlalthatheisfalselyimplicating the accused. Thereforethe plea of false implication in the statement under Section 313 oftheCr.P.C.maybetermedasafterthought. lt is argued that there is a discrepancy in the date ofsendingthearticleto
kgmw
9
x,
the doctor on 13-12-2002 and the report of the doctor Le. 2241—2002. Therefore, P.W. 18 Dr. R.L. Thakur in para 7 has specifically stated that on 22—11~2002 itself he had received the sealed spear for examination and in para 9 he has stated regarding hisreportEx.P—12— A. There is no cross—examination regarding the date ofreceipt of said spear for examination. Therefore, the date 13—12—2002 mentioned in Ex. P—12 may be a clerical error and in absence of any suggestion to the doctor in cross-examination regardingthedate of receipt of the spear, there is nothing to have suspicion in receipt of the said article by thggoctor for examination on 22-11-2002 itself. ,ltisnotthecaseof the prosecutiomthat the accused/appellant a e d by an article pickedupfromthesp ot the other hand, as‘ e’r,,evidence he was armed with sp‘e a a ched to the spotand assaulted which goes to show th 13. It is also arg u deceased would have been taken to the hospital immedi a m ight be possibility of his survival. Le From the material co dent that the village is 35 km away from the police station s nothing on record to show the distance between p’Olice‘wsta‘tion to the Government Hospital, Pratappur and there was no means of conveyance. in addition to it, as Basant had died instantaneously, this suggestion is hypothetical because there was hardly any chance to take the deceased in an . injured condition immediately to the hospital. lt is further argued that since the doctor has not noticed blood on the said spear on examination Ex. P-12—A, therefore presence of blood in the article A, B, C in the report of the FSL is suspicious. Scientific method to prove presenceofbloodonanyarticle is chemical examination of the same and not the examination with nakedeye. Even the presence of blood on spear is not a substantive piece of evidence to connect the appellant with the offence rather it is a very small additional e; circumstantial evidence. The prosecution case is based on eyewitness, the circumstantial evidence and the extra judicial evidence, and the prosecution has duly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused appellant only who killed the deceased
\s, ,
on account of earlier dispute in the noon.
ireri
SdlSdl’; Prashant Kumar Mishra C handra Bhushan Bajpai Judge Judge
. e ..,_..M.w.q—..w11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the incident was committed in a sudden quarrel or sudden fight without premeditation or intention to kill under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Whether the extra-judicial confession and eye-witness evidence were reliable and corroborated beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the lower court's conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable instead of reducing it under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sukhbir Singh v. State of HaryanaDistinguished¶39
Sukhbir Singh—v— State of Haryana (2002)3 SCC 327 · Who else cites this
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of MaharashtraDistinguished¶39
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad —v- State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandra Bhan Singh
State of Chhattisgarh
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
