Dismissed

Ramkripal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 May 2024CRA/111/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and assaults. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that an unlawful assembly was formed on a pre-existing land dispute, leading to injuries and death of the deceased.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants affirmed.

Ramkripal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Reserved on 09.02.2024

¶4

Pronounced on 08.05.2024

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 111 of 2006

¶6

1 - Ramkripal S/o Shri Tilakdhari Kushwah, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Sonhat, Police Station Ramkola, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Ram Sajivan S/o Shri Tilakdhari Kushwaha, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sonhat, Police Station Ramkola, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶8

3 - Deleted ( Tilakdhari) (Died) Honble Court Order Dated 06/02/2024.

¶9

4 - Tejnath S/o Shri Ramkripal, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sonhat, Police Station Ramkola, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶10

5 - Ambika Prasad S/o Shri Ram Sajivan, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sonhat, Police Station Ramkola, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶11

6 - Bhulan Prasad @ Bhulai, S/o Shri Ramkripal, Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sonhat, Police Station Ramkola, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶12

7 - Devsay S/o Shri Ramkripal, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sonhat, Police Station Ramkola, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Appellants Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chowki In -Charge, Raghunathnagar, Police Station Ramkola, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent - For Appellants Shri N. K. Chatterjee, Advocate For State - Ms. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G. A.

¶14

CAV Judgment by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶15

What is under assail in this appeal is the judgment dated 05.01.2006 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Surajpur, District Sur-

¶16

¶17

guja (CG) in Sessions Trial No.459/2004 by which the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

¶18

Conviction	Sentence
Offence Under Section 304, Part-1 R/w 149 of the IPC	RI for 10 years each with fine of amount Rs.200/-each in default of payment of fine further RI for 1 month.
U/s 325 R/w 149 of IPC	RI for 2 years each with fine of amount of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine further RI for 20 days each.
U/s 323 R/w 149 of IPC	RI for 6 months each with fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine further RI for 10 days each.
U/s 148 of IPC	RI for 1 year each.

¶19

Factually stating, some prior dispute in respect of an agriculture land already appears to have been existing between the accused persons and the complainant party, and for that, all the accused/appellants formed an unlawful assembly and then acting in furtherance of the common object to finish the deceased, came to the spot arming themselves with Lathi , Club and one more weapon locally known as Paina, and opened an assault on the deceased. Accused Ramkripal is said to have assaulted Ramjatan with club as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Thereafter accused Ramsajivan and Ramkripal assaulted the deceased and made him fall down on the ground. Thereafter accused Tejnath and Devsai also made the deceased unconscious by assaulting him. Accused Devsai is also stated to have assaulted Chimkot with club and accused Tejnath assaulted Jamuna with club. FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged by complainant namely Jamuna Prasad on the basis of Merg (Ex.P-2). Spot Map (Ex.P-11) was prepared, inquest on the dead body was conducted under Ex.P-1, the injured persons were sent to the hospital for medical examination and the body of the deceased was sent for autopsy. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC were

¶20

¶21

recorded, seizure of the weapons used in the incident was effected and all the seized articles were sent for chemical examination, and the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex.P-29. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed followed by framing of charge under Sections 147, 148, 302, in the alternative Section 302/149, 323/149, 325/149 and 323 and 325 IPC.

¶22

Prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses in order to prove its case. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 CrPC were also recorded in which they denied the allegations made against them, and claimed trial.

¶23

Learned trial Court after hearing the parties and going through the evidence adduced before it convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as described above. Hence this appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the accused/appellants submits that the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as referred to above are not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. He submits that on account of the pre-existing land dispute the accused/appellants have been dragged into a false case and that the injuries suffered by the injured persons are also simple in nature. The Court below is also argued to have misdirected itself in going through the evidence and later making the same to be the basis for its conclusion, which is erroneous. According to him, the contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses have also not been adhered to while appreciating the evidence. In totality of the circumstances, the conviction is argued to be bad in law and therefore, needs to be set aside.

¶25

On the other hand, learned State counsel strenuously opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the appellants and submitted that looking to the well reasoned findings recorded by the Court below, no

¶26

¶27

interference with the judgment impugned is called for. Advancing her arguments she has emphatically stated that looking to the evidence collected by the prosecution this indeed is a case under Section 302 IPC but taking a lenient view learned trial Court has already leaned in favour of the accused/ appellants while bringing the case within the sweep of Section 304-I IPC and therefore, the accused/appellants do not deserve any further leniency from this Court.

¶28

If the evidence of the witnesses is given a closer look, it becomes manifestly clear that on account of the pre-existing land dispute there was animosity between the two parties and that on the date of incident the accused/appellants formed an assembly which on the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution could well be designated as unlawful one, and then arming themselves with the lathi, club and paina, they reached the spot and caused injuries on the deceased and other injured persons which eventually resulted in the death of Janakdhari and in the injuries to other persons namely Ramjatan, Jamuna Prasad, Birbal, Vinod, Hiralal, Chohagari Bai, Leelavati, Premshanker and Chinkot. The injuries suffered by injured Ramjatan, Jamuna Prasad, Birbal, Vinod, Hirala, Chohagari Bai, Leelavati and Premshanker are said to be simple in nature vide medical reports Ex. P-12 to Ex.19 respectively. Except one, all the injuries suffered by Chitrakoot (Chinkot) were simple in nature vide Ex. P 20. From the factual analysis, it is manifest that offshoot of the incident can be attributed to the fact that having seen the complainant party cultivating the land which was resisted by the accused/appellants claiming the said land to be their own. All this happened on the spot itself. It can be thus said that the object to be accomplished by the accused/appellants was hatched on the spur of moment after reaching the field and seeing the complainant party ploughing the land. The postmortem report Ex. P-21 given by Dr. V. K. Singh (PW-11) gives an opinion regarding the cause of death due to cardiac respiratory arrest as a

¶29

¶30

consequence of internal haemorrhage from the injuries on the vital parts, and that the death was homicidal in nature. The weapons used in the assault were sent for chemical examination to forensic science laboratory from where the report Ex.P-29 was received according to which blood was confirmed to be present on the soil, club - used by accused / Ramkripal and the vest of the deceased. However, according to the same report no blood was found on the club used by accused/ Tilakdhari and Ramsajivan. Be that as it may, it is a case falling under Section 149 IPC, which provides for commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly every person who is member of that assembly may be held guilty of that offence irrespective of the role played by him, it would be a futile exercise to plunge into finding out the individual involvement of a particular accused.

¶31

It is a settled legal position that in order to attract Section 149 IPC it must be shown by the prosecution that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object by such unlawful assembly. It must also be within the knowledge of the other members as one likely to be committed in furtherance of the common object. Even if no overt act is imputed to a particular accused, the presence of that accused as part of the unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction. The inference of a common object has to be drawn from various factors such as the weapons with which the members were armed, their movements, the acts of violence committed by them, and the end result.

¶32

Having thus seen the factual background in the light of relevant provision, taking note of the medical report and the evidence given by the doctor (PW-11), the injuries suffered by the injured persons and the cause of death opined in the medical report, the approach of the trial Court in holding the accused/appellants guilty under Sections 304 part-1, 325, 323 IPC – all

¶33

¶34

suffixed by Section 149 IPC cannot be said to be at fault warranting any interference by this Court.

¶35

The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the judgment impugned convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants as described above is hereby affirmed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶38

Jyotishi

Ramkripal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkripal 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

Deleted (Etwa Ram Minj) (Died) Vs Krishna Kumar Singh

Smt. Bhan Bai Vs Akash Goyal

Smt. Mankunwar Vs Sah Bhumi Sanrakshan Adhikari

Smt. Basantin Bai Vs the Branch Manager

Shanta Nath Vs Dadda Alis Sushil Kumar

Smt. Kulwinder Kaur Vs Rupesh Kumar Rao