Partly allowed

Siya Ram Yadav v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2017CRA/1103/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the criminal appeal partly. It upheld the conviction under Section 326 IPC for an assault causing injury with a Tangia, commuted the sentence to time already served, extended the bail bond for six months, and allowed no interference with the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; bail bond extended for six months under Section 437-A CrPC.

Siya Ram Yadav Vs State of C.G. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

^FR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No. 1103 of 2001

¶4

Siya Ram Yadav, aged about 33 years son of Ramphal yaead, Resident of Ghutku Loniya Para, P.S. - Sarkanda, Tahsil Takhatpur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶5

-— Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through : P.S. Sarkanda, Tah. Takhatpur, District-Bjlspur(C.G.).

¶8

-—Respondent

¶9

¶10

ForAppelIant NA^S.R Sahu, Advocate Cr:« Foritate i^tel|af^harma, Panel La^gBr ^.^^^tf-' .MLiteiJ ^A

¶11

SB: HohlBlcfffflflBstice RSam'Koshv

fDcctorK&n Board

06.01.2017

^e.

i. The Appellant in has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.l. for 3 years.

¶16

The case of the prosecution in brief is that F.1.R. was lodged on 21.06.2000 Ex.P/10 at the Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur at the instance of PW/1 Prakash Koushik alleging that when he was going on his bicycle with a sack kept on the back of the cycle to the place where he was working as labour for collecting his wages, en-route the sack which was kept on the back of the cycle dashed the present Appellant who immediately reacted and an altercation took place between the Appellant and PW/1. However on intervention of one

¶17

't ^ j^{¥€;:'I'^,} 1 I "—-'-^1 ^ ^^^ ^^:€^^

¶18

Krishna and Ramesh both the Appellant and PW/1 were pacified and sent to their respective destination. However immediately thereafter when PW/1 was crossing from front of the house of the present Appellant he came there from inside with Tangia in his hand and gaye blow which fell on the head of PW/1 as a result of which he fell down and received injuries on his head. Thereafter report was lodged and the police took cognizance of the same. After investigation the matter was put to trial before the Court of the Sessions Judge,giB|^||r in||€es|>jons Trial No, 81/2001. The prQseculiamW atlexamined as manyl&l 10 Anesses and there was no any witness examinegj ^gn behalf of the defln@t^Finally vide the f impugned order tttgiCTu|S|i|%%tias reached to tl1©i(ilnclusionthat m -yM the Appellant was @||| ing committed offence under Section L^^^yy' 326 and sentenced||Jry'Utljlindergo R.l. for 3 years. It is this judgmentwhich is,t.i||cl|r|||^t|gnge in the presentAppeal.

¶19

This Appeal is of when the matter was cailed in the entire week there was no representation. Therefore this Court had to engage a lawyer from the panel from the hligh Court Legal Services Committee and took assistance of the said lawyer in the final disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

¶20

Learned Counsel of the Appellant taking the Court through the records including the evidence and as well as judgment passed by the Court below submitted that it is the case where even if the judgment of conviction is upheld the sentence part can be reduced to the period already undergone as the Appellant has already remained in custody for a period more than 1 year out of the total sentence

¶21

':—",...^':"•

¶22

awarded ofSyears.

¶23

The Counsel for the Appellant submits that from the reading of the evidence of PW/1, the Complainant, it would be evidently clear that it was the complainant who is first responsible for the fight which arose. As it was the Complainant while going on the bicycle with bag on the back of his cycle dashed Appellant Siyaram, and quarrel ensued and later on the Appellant is said to have out of sudden provocation and because of heat of passion in the spur of the moment assayltesl i\N||! wit| jaiKT^ngiya resulting in the injury on headlof| Wmplainant PW/1 Pra1<a§ltKouNlik,

¶24

¶25

¶26

6.^ ^ to the Cour]$eLfor the Appellant fl'i|j;|fffigrd also shows that there was o^CTtlsWyfWti^h has been givehily^he Appellant which clearly refle|lc^gj|^ggpig|l of the Appellant that he was not intended to fatally ajt|ic|kyi|^/l. Further the cause of the fight is attributable to PV^lgt£tti|;^l3iWiajone is a good ground for this Court to reduce the seRU3iBS@affi?sr already undergone. It was aiso contended by the Counsel for the Appellant that it is a case where the incident took place more than 16 years back and appeal also is more than 16 years old. Therefore at this juncture in the given factual matrix of the case no fruitful purpose would be served if the Appellant is forced to undergo remaining sentence. Thus prayed for the sentence to be modified accordingly.

¶27

The State Counsel however opposing the Appeal submits that it is the case where the Court below has rightly convicted the Appellant for the offence under Section 326 IPC. The State Counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution stood established from the evidence

¶28

of PW/1, the injured Prakash Koushik. Further, use of dangerous weapon like Tangiya is also one of the reasons where the conviction of the Appellant deserves to be affirmed. It was also contended by the State Counsel that the Court below has itself given less punishment of 3 years looking to the gravity of the offence and nature of the injury. The impugned judgment does not warrant any interference and thus prayed for rejection oftheAppeal.

¶29

Having considered the rival contention put forth on either side and on facts which needs to be perusal of tha |g(|||iid|j|he |admjtted empNpizedW is thatfir&l the^rtpident took place more (hah 16 years ago i.e. injhe year 2000. The8rn|||Bc| PW/1 received only one injury tNgi||||8flBlQhfi head. Except1§|£lhesaid injury there was no other|(|^|ad9 bY the Doctor G.LArora, PW/9 who conducted M.L.C. qr|F|IA^I}itpure, PW/8 who had taken X-ray and confirmed the h^|a^@r|EpN opined that the nature of injury sustained by the in^^g|g||®!giy6sgrievous in nature.

¶30

Another admitted fact is that the fight between the Appellant and PW/1 took place because of PW/1 dashing the Appellant with his bicycle. The prosecution has not been able to adduce evidence to show that there was any sort of previous enmity between the two. Neither has the prosecution adduced any evidence to show^thatthe Appellant was already armed.

¶31

lO.Thus from the aforesaid facts it clearly reflects^{thattheincident} occurred because of heat of passion that arose on account of PW/1 dashing the Appellant with his bicycle and that there was heated altercation between the Appellant and PW/1 which is also evident

¶32

¶33

-.sy

¶34

from the statement of PW/1 and because of the charged atmosphere and spur of moment the Appellant took out Tangiya from his house and assaulted PW/1. The record also does not show that the injured PW/1 was hospitalized for a long period of time for treatment of the injury. The Appellant at the time of the incident itself was aged around 33 years and by now he would have already become a middle aged man and at this juncture this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served if he is ordered to be sent for undergoinghi s,,re|3 ajr|ing|sen|a| ©e.,

¶35

From fl^ie^idlnce Which have ccymwon rffi^ord it is true that it has been proved by the Prosecution beyond all rei|giNable doubt that it was the Appellat^^v|g|||fsaulted the injured 1|1A/%L with Tangia on his head. Thu^^|S(i|g|Batement of PW/1 and other evidence which have come or( feffitff j|iis Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion^RSt^iEl^^lrwi^tion of the Appellant under Section 326 IPC is fullyyi}BslfiBfi2^N3Per ancl le9al anc' the impugned judgmentof the conviction for the offence under Section 326 IPC does not warrant any interference.

¶36

However in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case which has been discussed in the preceding paragraph and also taking note of the fact that the Appellant by this time has already undergone custody of around one year and 25 days, this Court is of the opinion ^-

¶37

that ends of justice would meet if the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is maintained, however the sentence part stands reduced to the period already undergone.

¶38

The appellant is on bail. His bond shall remain operative for a

¶39

¶40

period of 6 months in view of the provisions contained kL^ection

¶41

437-AoftheCr.P.C.

¶42

i4.With the aforesaid observation the present Appeal stands partly

¶43

allowed.

¶44

Sd/P. Sam^Koshy Judge

¶45

kishore

¶46

IN^:

¶47

y ty ^^vy A/'"rt1i

Siya Ram Yadav v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siya Ram Yadav v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Utkal Hydrocarbons Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Mohan Das and Ors. Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagirathi Pandey Vs Ramesh Pandey

Central Bank Of India Vs Sarabjeet Singh

Tinku Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vikram Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh