Dismissed

Kabeer Ram v. State

Chhattisgarh HC3 Oct 2018CRA/765/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh affirmed the conviction and sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court under Section 304 part-2 IPC for causing death by culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court relied on the post-mortem report and witness statements to reject the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence under Section 304(2) IPC affirmed.

Kabeer Ram Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 765/2001

¶5

(Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 177-2001 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja (CG) in ST No. 71/2000)

¶6

Kabeer Ram S/o. Gundruram Nagvanshi aged 40 years, occupation Agriculture, caste Tribe, R/o. Village Gautiyapara Patela, P.S. Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (Ambikapur), CG ---- Appellant

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (Ambikapur), CG --- -Respondent

¶9

For appellant : None. For State : Shri Suryakant Mishra, PL.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge ORAL JUDGMENT

¶11

3-10-2018

¶12

In this criminal appeal the challenge levied is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17-7-2001 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Sarguja (CG) in ST No. 71/2000 whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 304 (part – 2) of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years.

¶13

This is admitted by the appellant that he is the father of deceased Dilbandhu.

¶14

¶15

In brief, case of the prosecution is that on 10-1-2000 at about 8 – 9 pm at village Patela, the appellant caused head injury to the deceased on account of land dispute. On 11-1-2000, when he was taken to hospital, Ambikapur, doctor told that he had already died. A merg intimation was lodged in police station Sitapur. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the appellant. The Trial Court framed the charge against the appellant u/s 302, IPC. Appellant abjured the charge and faced trial.

¶16

After conclusion of the trial, Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge punishable under Section 302, IPC, but convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.

¶17

Counsel for the State argued that the conviction and the sentence of the appellant is based on clinching evidence. The conviction and sentence of the appellant do not call for interference by this Court.

¶18

As per the PM report Ex. P-9, P.W. 5 Dr. M. Nikunj had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased. He had found a lacerated wound on the forehead of the deceased size 5 cm x 3 cm x ½ cm. On internal examination he had found a fracture on the forehead of the deceased size 5 cm x 3 cm. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of fracture of forehead.

¶19

There is no such evidence on record on strength of which it can be said that Ex. P-9 is not believable. Thus this Court believes on Ex. P-9.

¶20

¶21

P.W. 2 Phool Kuwari says in para 1 of her statement given on oath that the appellant had caused the injury on the head of her husband by club.

¶22

P.W. 1 Luri Ram says in para 6 of his statement given on oath that wife of the deceased had told him that her father-in-law had caused injury on the body of the deceased.

¶23

P.W. 6 Pattu Ram says in para 7 of his statement given on oath that the appellant had told that he had beaten the deceased.

¶24

P.W. 8 Tihul Das says in para 1 of his statement given on oath that wife of the deceased had told him that the appellant had beaten the deceased by club. Injury was caused on the head of the deceased.

¶25

There is no such evidence on record on strength of which it can be said that aforesaid statements of P.W. 2 Phul Kuwari, P.W. 1 Luri Ram, P.W. 6 Pattu Ram, P.W. 8 Tihul Das are not simple, not natural, not normal. Thus, this Court believes on the aforesaid statements of P.W. 2 Phul Kuwari, P.W. 1 Luri Ram, P.W. 6 Pattu Ram, P.W. 8 Tihul Das.

¶26

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstance of the case this Court finds that prosecution has succeeded to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge punishable under Section 304 (part-2) of the IPC against the appellant. The sentence awarded by the Trial Court is just and sufficient, and not excessive. Consequently the aforesaid judgment of the conviction and order of the sentence are hereby affirmed.

¶27

¶28

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶29

As per report of the Central Jail, Ambikapur dated 7-122017 appellant has been released on 27-3-2004 after completion of sentence, thus, no further order is required.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Sharad Kumar Gupta)

¶32

Judge

¶33

Pathak/-

Kabeer Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kabeer Ram v. State

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

Ritesh Sahare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tirith Ram @ Mela Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arun Jagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shatrughan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Kumar Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh