Allowed

Chaituram Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2023CRA/1578/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction for culpable homicide, the High Court acquitted the appellant of Section 304 Part II IPC charges and convicted him under Section 323 IPC. The court held that since the victim died due to septicemia from untreated injuries and not directly from the assault, the offence was lesser. The appellant, already serving jail time, was set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set-aside; Appellant acquitted of Section 304 Part II IPC and convicted under Section 323 IPC; Appellant set at liberty forthwith.

Chaituram Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Appeal No.1578 of 2022

¶4

Chaituram Markam, S/o Sudduram Markam, aged about 55 years, R/o Pandeaathgaon, Thana Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶8

	---- Respondent
For Appellant	: Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For State/Respondent	: Mr. Anurag Verma, Panel Lawyer

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶10

Judgment on Board

¶11

02.08.2023

¶12

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed in Session Trial No.120/2021 by learned Sessions Judge, Kondagaon C.G., wherein, the Appellant has been convicted as mentioned below:

¶13

Conviction	Sentence	In Default
U/s 304 Part 2 of	Rigorous	In default of
the Indian Penal	Imprisonment	payment of fine
Code.	for 5 years with	amount, additional
	fine of Rs.100/-	RI for 3 months.

¶14

¶15

2. In this case, name of the deceased is Somari Bai. On 26.07.2021, allegedly, the Appellant assaulted Somari Bai with knob of axe due to that she sustained injuries on her leg and other parts of body. After 15 days of the incident, she died on 08.08.2021 due to injuries sustained by her. Morgue (Ex.p1) was lodged by brother-in-law of the deceased Ramuram (PW1) thereafter FIR (Ex.p2) was also registered by him. Inquest proceeding was conducted. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Tushar Chandravanshi (PW11). His report is Ex.P14. Cause of death of the deceased was found due to septicemia, shock and got infected due to injuries sustained by her. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Police. Trial Court framed the charges against the Appellant. To robe the Appellant in the crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. In statement of the Appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no defence witness was examined by the Appellant.

¶16

3. After completion of trial, Trial Court convicted and

¶17

3 sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶18

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that without having any sufficient evidence available on record, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant. He further submits that there is no eyewitness in this case. The incident was occurred on 26.07.2021 and the deceased died after 13 days of the incident in the house of her brother-in-law Ramuram. From the medical evidence, statement of Ramuram (PW1) as well as statements of other witnesses, it is well established that the proper treatment was not given to Somari Bai due to which she got infected and died due to septicemia. According to the medical report, no injuries were found on any vital part of body of the deceased, therefore, if the entire case of prosecution taken as it is even then, the case of the Appellant falls within the ambit of Section 323 of the IPC only. Hence, conviction of the Appellant under Section 304 Part 2 is not sustainable. Reliance has been placed by the Counsel on a judgment passed by this Court in Siyaram Gond Vs. State of M.P. (Now C.G.) 2014(2) C.G.L.J. 459 and another judgment passed by this Court in Anand Ram Vs. State of M.P. (Now C.G.)

¶19

¶20

2014(4) C.G.L.J. 633 .

¶21

5. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the argument advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and supported the impugned judgment.

¶22

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, perused the entire record and gone through the statement of the witnesses with utmost circumspection.

¶23

7. Undisputedly, the deceased was the wife of Appellant herein. There is also no dispute on the point that deceased was the first wife of the Appellant and their marriage was solemnized prior to 30 years from the death of the deceased. There is no dispute that after 15 years of marriage, since no child was born to the deceased, the Appellant, with the consent of the deceased, entered into a second marriage. There is also no dispute on the point that in a same campus in two different houses both the wifes of the Appellant were residing separately. The Appellant was resided with his second wife.

¶24

8. On minute examination of the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to the incident, it reveals that there is no eye-witness in this case regarding the

¶25

¶26

alleged incident committed by the Appellant. Lalita (PW4) in her Court statement deposed that after listening about the incident, she along with Ganpat went to the village of the deceased where, the deceased was found in an injured condition in her house and it was told by the deceased to Lalita that Appellant had assaulted her with the help of club. According to this witness, then they returned to their village taking the deceased along with them. The above statement of Lalita (PW4) has not been rebutted during her crossexamination. Thus, from the unrebutted statement of Lalita (PW4), it is established that immediately after the incident, the deceased informed this witness that she was assaulted by the Appellant through club. Further, FSL report also corroborating the prosecution case according to which, human blood stains were found on the knob of axe which was seized from the Appellant. Considering the above and further considering the statement of Lalita (PW4), the Trial Court has rightly held that the deceased was assaulted by the Appellant and caused injuries to her with the help of knob of axe.

¶27

9. Rajuram (PW1), brother-in-law of the deceased, stated in his Court statement that the deceased was brought to his house in an injured condition and was not taken

¶28

¶29

to the hospital. According to this witness, the deceased was treated at his house only. Thus, from the admission made by Rajuram (PW1), it is established that the deceased was found in an injured state but, was not taken to the hospital and was treated at home through home remedies.

¶30

10. Dr. Tushar Chandravanshi (PW11) who conducted postmortem of the deceased has deposed that at the time of conducting postmortem, It was found by him that there was swelling in the right leg of the deceased below the waist till the toes, the skin was coming off below the knee joint of the right leg whose length was 11 inches and roundness was 12 inches, there were two holes in the shape of the said injury from which pus was coming out. Cause of death was undetermined by the Doctor. Thereafter, according to the report of Medical College, Jagdalpur, the Doctor has opined that the cause of death was septicemia due to infection in the unhealed wound. During cross-examination, this witness admitted that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not dangerous for her life.

¶31

11. On minute examination of above statement of Dr. Tushar Chandravanshi (PW11) and his medical report Ex.P14, it clearly shows that no injury was found by the

¶32

¶33

Doctor on vital part of the deceased. There was injury in right leg of the deceased and she died from septicemia due to infection in the unhealed wound. From the statement of Rajuram (PW1), the deceased was not taken to the hospital and treated in home itself. The deceased died after 13 days of the incident, therefore, it is well established that the deceased died due to septicemia not because of injuries caused by the Appellant. Therefore, the act committed by the Appellant falls within the ambit of Section 323 of the IPC only and the conviction of the Appellant under Section 304 Part 2 is not sustainable.

¶34

12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kondagaon C.G. is hereby set-aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the offense punishable under section 304 Part II of the IPC and convicted of the offense punishable under section 323 of the IPC.

¶35

13. As regards the sentence part for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, the minimum sentence prescribed in the section is 1 year. Since, the Appellant is in jail since 08.08.2021, thereby he is already completed about 2 years of jail sentence. It is directed that he be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be

¶36

¶37

detained under any other process of law.

¶38

14. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and

¶39

necessary compliance.

¶40

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶41

S hubham

Chaituram Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaituram Markam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yatindra Kumar Soni Vs Mr. Abhay Jaiswal

Jagdish Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sewaram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gaurav Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs Manoj Kumar Pingua (I. a. S.)

Rishi Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh