Partly allowed

Ramdhan Korva v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2023CRA/552/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appellant's appeal in part, converting his conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II IPC). The court reduced the sentence to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and ordered immediate release as the appellant had already served over 10 years.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part-II IPC; sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment; appellant set at liberty forthwith having served over 10 years.

Ramdhan Korva Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Reserved for judgment on 28.07.2023

¶5

Pronouncement for judgment on 11.08.2023 CRA No.552 of 2020

¶6

Ramdhan Korva S/o Ghurau Korva Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Alga Bendopani, P.S. Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Appellant (In Jail)

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

(Cause title is taken from CIS)

¶12

For Appellant : Shri Roop Ram Naik, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Arijit Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

¶13

D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal CAV Judgment

¶14

Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

¶15

This appeal has been preferred by the accused-Ramdhan under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.12.2014 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja at Ambikapur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.300/2010, whereby the appellant has been convicted

¶16

¶17

for commission of offence of murder of one Raju and that by inflicting one Bandhan under Section 302 & 324 of the IPC respectively and the appellant-Ramdhan has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for life and fine amount of Rs.200/-, while three years has been awarded under 324 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 10 days in both sections and the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶18

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 05.04.2010, at about 3 PM at Village Alga, Bendopani, the appellant Ramdhan, Soma Korwa, Dharam Korwa, Butul Korwa, Shanti Bai and Jethi Bai in furtherance of their common object, have formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like arrow and bow, committed the murder of Raju and injured his brothers namely Gohandul, Chhotu and Bandhan, mother-Deori Bai with the aid of bow and arrow and stones. A Dehati Nalishi was lodged by Bandhan at 17 hours vide Ex.P-21 and based upon which, FIR was registered by the Police Station, Lakhanpur on the same day in connection with Crime No.92/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 506-B, 307 and 302 of the IPC. Inquest of dead body was conducted on 05.04.2010 vide Ex.P-2 and spot map was prepared on 16.06.2010 vide Ex.P18”A”. The dead body of the deceased Raju was sent for autopsy on 04.05.2010 vide Ex.P-33 and autopsy was conducted by Dr. P. S. Kerketta (PW-12), who opined vide his report (Ex.P-30) that the cause of death is hemorrhage shock due to perforation of liver and it was also

¶19

¶20

opined that the death was homicidal in nature. The injured were sent for their medical examinations vide Ex.P-34 to Ex.P-37. Bow and arrows were seized from the house of the appellant-Ramdhan on 09.04.2010 vide Ex.P-9 from his house based upon his disclosure statement dated 09.04.2010. The appellant and other accused persons were arrested and the statements of the witnesses were recorded and after due investigation, the appellant and others were chargesheeted for the offence punishable under the aforesaid offence and final report was, accordingly, submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surguja on 03.07.2010, who in turn, has committed the matter to the Court of Sessions Judge in exercise of the power under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

The appellant and other accused persons have denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.

¶22

In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant and other accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses, while one defence witness has been examined in rebuttal.

¶23

After considering the evidence led by the parties, it was held by the trial Court that the appellant-Ramdhan has intentionally committed the murder of Raju on account of land dispute with the aid of bow and arrow and held further that he voluntarily caused grievous injuries to his brother-Bandhan and accordingly, he (appellant) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 324 of IPC, while other accused persons namely Soma Korwa and Butul Korwa have

¶24

¶25

been held liable under Section 307 of IPC and accuseds’ Jethi Bai, Shanti Bai and Dharam Korwa were held guilty under Section 324 of IPC and all have been acquitted with regard to the rest of the offences. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Ramdhan has preferred this appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 and 324 of IPC is apparently contrary to law, in as much as, it did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and thereby erred in convicting him as such. It is contended further that even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, the appellant, at the most, could be convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and prays for conversion of his conviction under the said provision.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the trial Court.

¶28

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

¶29

From perusal of the record, it appears that the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased-Raju was conducted by Dr. P. S. Kerketta, (PW-12), who has submitted his report vide Ex.P-30 and it was opined that the cause of death was homicidal in nature. In the postmortem report, Ex.P-30, the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased :-

¶30

¶31

“Sharp cut wound over occipital region, 2 in numbers, each 4 cm x 2 cm

¶32

Incised wound over Rt. Rib region size 4 cm x 2 cm, bleeding present”

¶33

After considering the postmortem report, Ex.P-30, the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the cause of death was homicidal in nature and we accordingly affirmed the same.

¶34

It is now to be considered as to whether the alleged crime was committed by the appellant-Ramdhan or not and, if it is found that he is the author of the crime, then, whether his conviction would be liable to be converted to that of Section 304 Part-II of IPC ?

¶35

Bhuneshwar Ram Painkra (PW-1) was the “Patel” of the concerned village, who informed the police regarding the dead body of the deceased-Raju and after receiving the said information, the police came and prepared the inquest of the dead body vide Ex.P-2.

¶36

Bandhan Korwa (PW-2) was the brother of the deceased-Raju and according to him, the alleged quarrel took place with regard to the land dispute and initially his another brother namely Gohandul was being assaulted by the appellant and other accused persons and when his deceased brother-Raju Korwa reached there, then at that point of time, the appellant-Ramdhan has shooted him with arrow from his bow on his right chest and it was deposed further by him that when he intercepted the matter, then he was also shooted with arrow by him (Ramdhan) on his left shoulder, owing to which, he ran away from the

¶37

¶38

spot, while his deceased’s brother-Raju could not run and fell down on the spot. It was deposed further that the appellant-Ramdhan had purchased the land from his maternal grandfather (Nana) Sonsay and was residing there for the last five years while constructing a hut over it. 14. Sulendra (PW-3) is an attesting witness to the seizure memo, Ex.P-9, and according to him, the bow and arrow were recovered from the house of the appellant-Ramdhan on 09.04.2010 based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-8).

¶39

Chhotu (PW-5) is the another brother of deceased Raju Korwa and according to him, the appellant-Ramdhan has assaulted both of his brothers, i.e. Raju and Bandhan and it was deposed further by him that the appellant has shooted his brother i.e. deceased-Raju with arrow on his abdomen, owing to which, he died on the spot. In his crossexamination, it was stated that the alleged dispute was occurred owing to the land and, has shown his ignorance whether it was purchased by the appellant-Ramdhan from said Sonsay or not. It was stated further that his brother Gohandul was assaulted by said Ramdhan and others when he went there in order to resist them.

¶40

Deori Bai (PW-6) is the mother of the deceased-Raju and according to her, the appellant -Ramdhan was residing in her father’s (Sonsay) land by constructing a hut (Jhala) forcefully and he (Ramdhan) and others have assaulted her as also to her four sons namely Bandhan, Gohandul, Raju and Chhotu with the aid of arrow from his bow and stones. In her cross-examination, it was stated that

¶41

¶42

the dispute arose with regard to the land owned by her father-Sonsay and, appellant-Ramdhan and others were constructing a house over it. She states further that said Ramdhan was residing in a hut constructed by him over the alleged land for 4-5 years and has reiterated that the appellant-Ramdhan has assaulted her sons Raju and Bandhan.

¶43

Gohandul (PW-7), who is the brother of deceased-Raju and according to him, the appellant shooted his brother i.e. deceased-Raju with the aid of arrow from his bow on his stomach. 18. From perusal of the aforesaid testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is, thus, evident that on the fateful day, one Gohandul, the deceased’s brother was initially been assaulted by the appellant and other accused persons with regard to the land dispute and when deceased-Raju went near his brother-Gohandul, he was, then shooted with arrow by the appellant-Ramdhan from his bow on his abdomen and, his brother (Bandhan)was also shooted by him as such, when he intercepted the matter. It appears further that the appellant Ramdhan was residing in the land owned by the deceased’s maternal grandfather (Nana) by constructing a hut (Jhala) over it and alleged dispute appears to be arisen when he started construction of a house. In view of such circumstances, though the deceased-Raju and his brother-Bandhan was found to be shooted by the appellant-Ramdhan with the aid of his bow and arrow and the alleged weapon was recovered from his house Vide Ex.P-9, but, it cannot be said that the aforesaid act of him was done with an intention to kill Raju or to injured Bandhan grievously as in

¶44

¶45

the said community, they ordinarily used to carry such weapons. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be converted to that of Section 304 Part-II of IPC, instead Section 302 of IPC.

¶46

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the appellantRamdhan shall stands convicted under Section 304 Part-II of IPC instead Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and remaining part of his sentence shall remain intact. As the appellant is in jail since 09.04.2010 and has, thus, behind the bars for over more than 10 years, therefore, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶47

SD/SD/- (Goutam Bhaduri) (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶48

Tumane

Ramdhan Korva v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdhan Korva 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

Deepak Verma Vs Smt. Rashmi Verma

(Deleted) Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Agrawal

Pradeep Agrawal Vs Ashish Mishra

Yashwardhan Tiwari Vs Dr. Rupali Mathur

Smt. Rashmi Kashyap Vs Hemant Kumar Kashyap

Asutosh Dewangan Vs Smt. Savita Dewangan