Partly allowed

Roshan Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Aug 2023CRA/941/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court altered the conviction of two appellants from Section 304 Part-II IPC to Section 323 IPC, finding the injuries were simple abrasions caused by fists without causing death. The appeal was partly allowed with sentencing commuted to time already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Conviction altered from Section 304 Part-II IPC to Section 323 IPC; sentence commuted to period already undergone.

Roshan Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.941 of 2005

¶3

Roshan Lal, S/o Shri Rupchand Jaiswal, aged about 32 years, R/o Dhaniya, Thana-Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶4

---- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Respondent

¶8

And

¶9

Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2006

¶10

1. Roshan Lal, S/o Shri Rupchand Jaiswal, aged about 32 years, R/o Dhaniya, Thana-Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2. Soupat Das @ Sampat Das, S/o Shanicharu Das Manikpuri, aged 31 years, R/o Khanda, Thana-Seepat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Appellants

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Sipat, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

For Appellant in CRA No.941/2005 : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Appellant in CRA No.33/2006 : Mr. KK Dewangan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shrawan Ku. Chandel, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶18

Judgment on Board

¶19

22.08.2023

¶20

1. Since, both the appeals arise out of common judgment dated

¶21

20.12.2005, therefore, decided by this common judgment.

¶22

¶23

2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 20.12.2005 passed in Session Trial No.181/2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) wherein, the Appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, with default stipulation.

¶24

3. In this case, name of deceased is Sahettar Singh. As per prosecution case, on 1.4.2005 around 6 PM, the deceased came near general store of one Rajbahadur, there, a quarrel took place between Appellant Soupat Das and the deceased for sale and purchase of wood, meanwhile, Appellant Roshan Lal also came there and the deceased started abusing Roshan Lal, thereafter, Roshan Lal assaulted the deceased with hands and fists. After sometime of the incident, when the deceased returned to his house and narrating story of the incident to his father Chattar Singh (PW11) and his wife Kirtanbai (PW2) suddenly, pain was started on his chest and he died on the same day around 10:11 PM in his home. Morgue was registered as Ex.p3. On the basis of morgue, FIR (Ex.p14) was registered. Dr. Rajesh Kumar (PW13) conducted postmortem (Ex.p9) of the deceased. 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 Appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC. To robe the

¶25

3 Appellants in the crime-in-question, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. In statement of the Appellants recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, they pleaded innocence and false implication, however, no defence witness was examined by them.

¶26

4. After completion of trial, Trial Court acquitted the Appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC, however convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶27

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants jointly submit that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken at face value, no offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC is made out against the Appellants, however, the Appellants can only be held guilty of offence under Section 323 IPC.

¶28

6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel opposes the appeal and supported the impugned judgment.

¶29

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record available with utmost circumspection.

¶30

8. Eye-witnesses of the case Sakharam (PW6), Rajbahadur (PW7) and Manrakhan (PW9) have deposed that on the date of incident, it was seen by them that near the house of Sakharam, there was a quarrel took place between the

¶31

4 Appellants and the deceased and both the parties have assaulted each other with hands and fists. They further deposed that around 11 PM of same day, it was informed by Gitaram (PW1) that Sahettar has died in his house. Son of deceased Itwari Singh (PW8) also deposed that after the incident, when his father Sahettar returned to his house, it was told by him that he was assaulted by the Appellants herein. Suddenly he started having chest pain and after some time he died at home. Statement of Itwari Singh (PW8) also corroborated by Gitaram (PW1) & Kirtan Bai (PW2).

¶32

9. On minute examination of above witnesses, it is clearly established that on 1.4.2005, there was a quarrel took place between the deceased and the Appellants herein and the deceased was assaulted by the Appellants with hands and fists only.

¶33

10. Postmortem of dead body of Sahettar was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar (PW13). On carefully perusal of postmortem report Ex.p9, only 3 injuries were found by the Doctor on body of the deceased and all the injuries were abrasions and were simple in nature. The Doctor in his medical report categorically stated that he was unable to give his opinion regarding death of the deceased.

¶34

11. Considering the medical evidence available on record, it is established that only 3 injuries were found by the Doctor on

¶35

5 body of the deceased and all the injuries were abrasions and were simple in nature. As per the statements of the eyewitnesses, the deceased was assaulted by the Appellants herein with hands and fists only. The Doctor was unable to give his opinion regarding death of the deceased. Considering the entire evidence available on record, I am of the view that the case would fall within the ambit of Section 323 IPC only and not Section 302 Part-II. Ordered accordingly.

¶36

12. The conviction of the Appellants is altered to Section 323 of IPC only and against the conviction they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them i.e. about 8 months.

¶37

13. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed

¶38

14. It is reported that the Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the same shall remain operative for a further period of six months in light of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶39

15. Records of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance, if any.

¶40

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶41

S hubham

Roshan Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Lal 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

Nirmalchand Jain Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lalit Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjeev Bang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roshanlal and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dropati Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prakash Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh