Partly allowed

Samaru Manjhi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2024CRA/1136/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Section 307/34 IPC for an axe attack on a sleeping victim. Medical evidence showed simple injuries not dangerous to life; the High Court altered the conviction to Section 324/34 IPC, sentenced each appellant to two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine, credited jail time already served, and partly allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Conviction altered from S.307/34 to S.324/34 IPC; R.I. two years plus Rs.2,000 fine each, set-off of custody period, bail bonds to continue six months.

Samaru Manjhi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1136 of 2015

¶3

Samaru Manjhi S/o Late Budhuram Manjhi Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Bandhanpur Janjhpara, P. S. Kapu, District Raigarh,-Chhattisgarh.

¶4

Nanhiram Manjhi S/o Samaru Manjhi Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Bandhanpur Janjhpara, P. S. Kapu, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

Parmeshwar @ Panne Manjhi, S/o Samaru Manjhi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Bandhanpur Janjhpara, P. S. Kapu, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Kapu, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellants : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Yadav, G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶12

Order on board

¶13

08.04.2024

¶14

The appeal arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.08.2015 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 17/2015 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following

¶15

manner:-

¶16

CONVICTION	SENTENCE	PUNISHMENT IN
		DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE
Under Section	R.I for 10years with	R.I. for six months to

¶17

307/34 of IPC fine of Rs. 2,000/each appellant.

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that on 08.11.2014 when the victim was sleeping in his house alongwith his family members, the appellants have entered into his house started scuffling and the appellant Samaru gave a blow by an axe on his head. When the victim shouted for help his family members came there and after seeing that his family members are coming the appellants fled-away. The matter is reported by the victim in the next morning at about 10:00 a.m at police station – Kapu for which the offence under Section 456, 307/34 of IPC was registered against the appellants vide Ex.P-1. The victim was sent for his medical examination to Community Health Centre, Dharamjaygarh, where PW-4 Dr. S.S. Bhagat has examined him and gave his report is Ex. P-5. While examining the victim the doctor has found incised wound, 5 c.m. x 1c.m x ½ c.m, on the right side of the cheek, horizontal, bleeding occurs and clotted oval in shape, incised wound 3 c.m x 1c.m x ½ c.m on the right side of head post to right ear anterior posterior bleeding occurs and clotted. The injuries were simple in nature. The police has made query to the doctor with respect to the nature of injuries vide Ex. P-6 A and in reply to that query the doctor has replied that injury of the victim

¶19

is not grievous in nature and it could be healed within a week if no other complications arises. The query report is Ex.P-6. The appellant Samaru was taken in to custody, his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-9 and based on it an axe was seized from him vide seizure memo is Ex.P-10. The other appellants have arrested on 09.11.2014. The statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witnesses have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaygarh for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC.

¶20

The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh from where it has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellants for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. The appellants abjured their guilt and claimed trial.

¶21

In order to prove charge against the accused persons the prosecution has examined eight witnesses and the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears

¶22

against them, plead innocence and submitted that they are innocent.

¶23

After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the earlier part in the judgment hence, this appeal.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution could not establish the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There are material, omissions and contradictions in evidence of the prosecution witnesses. From the evidence of doctor it is established that the victim has received simple injuries yet the learned trial Court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. Under the fact and circumstances of the case as also the injury report, and query report the offence against the appellant, if any, does not travel beyond the scope of section 324 of IPC for voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapon to the victim and therefore their conviction under Section 307/34 of IPC be set aside and the appellants be acquitted. He would further submit that the appellants have already remained in jail from

¶25

10.11.2014 till 17.12.2019 and thereby they have already undergone sufficient period of jail sentence and by altering the conviction of the appellants from the offence of section 307 to section 324 of IPC, they may be awarded any term of sentenced provided under Section 324 of IPC, appropriately.

¶26

On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it has been established that injuries have been caused on the vital part of the body of the victim. For the offence of Section 307 of the IPC the intention coupled with some overt-act has to be seen for which the learned trial Court has rightly considered that the victim was injured by the assault made by the appellants by the blow given by axe on his head, which shows their intention that they intended to commit murder of the victim. The appellant Samaru have given the blow and other two co-accused were caught hold the victim and therefore the involvement of the appellants in crime in question has been duly proved by the witnesses and also by medical evidence therefore, the appeal of the appellants is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶28

PW-1 the victims has stated in his deposition that on the date of incident when he was sleeping in his house alongwith his family members, the appellants entered into his house and gave axe blow on his head by which he received injuries on his head. The other two co-accused person have caught hold his hand and legs. By the assault made by the appellants, blood was oozing out from the injuries and when he shouted the appellant fled-away. In cross examination, he stated that at the time of lodging of police report he informed the police that the two other co-accused persons have caught hold his hand and legs and if it is not there in his police report Ex. P-1 and statement Ex.D-1 he could not tell the reason. In his cross examination, the defence has not specifically cross examined him on the issue of assault made by appellant Samaru and presence of two other co-accused persons alongwith him at the time of commission of offence when the appellants entered in to the house of the victim that too at 2:00 in the night and made assault on the head of the victim by axe, have not been got rebutted by the defence in cross examination of the victim.

¶29

PW-2, Bulmati who is the mother of the victim have stated

¶30

in his deposition that on the date of incident, she was sleeping in her house and when she heard the noise of her son she came to the spot and saw the appellant flying away from the place and her son was lying there in injured condition and blood was oozing out from the injuries and then other persons were also came. In cross examination she stated that she has identified the appellants by their voice. She admitted that they were having land dispute with the appellants since three-four years. The dispute is with respect with to the possession of the land.

¶31

PW-4 Dr. S.S Bhagat have proved the injury on the body of the victim. While giving his medical report Ex.P-5 and query report Ex.P-6. He has also examined the axe and opined that the injury found on the body of the victim could have been caused by the said axe. Nothing could be elicited in the evidence of the mother of the victim PW-2 and from the evidence of doctor PW-4 so as to disbelieve their evidence.

¶32

PW-5 Michal who is the son of the victim have also identified the assailant on the date of incident that they are accused persons. He saw his father in injured condition and appellants fleeing from the spot and he too remain firm in

¶33

cross examination that the appellants have caused injuries to his father.

¶34

From these evidence, the complicity of the appellants in offence in question has been duly proved by the prosecution that they have caused injury to the victim.

¶35

So far as the nature of injuries and the offence of Section 307 is concerned, the doctor PW-4 have clearly opined that the injuries received on the body of the victim is simple in nature and even in query Ex.P-6 he opined that the injury received is simple in nature and could have been healed within a week if no complications arises. There is no fracture found on the head of the victim. When the three persons attacked over one person that too in sleeping condition and if the victim is not suffered with any grievous injury and found only simple injury on his cheek, it can not be said that the appellants gave axe blow with intention to cause is death or attempt to murder of the victim.

¶36

Although the victim has received simple injury on his vital part of his body i.e. cheek but in view of the evidence of the doctor PW-4 it can not be said that it is fatal to life or dangerous to life or the victim may have died if it is not treated in time.

¶37

In the considered view of this Court, in view of the facts of the present case, the offence of the appellants does not falls under Section 307 of IPC but certainly falls under Section 324 of IPC, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of IPC is set aside instead thereof the appellants are convicted for the offence 324/34 of the IPC for voluntarily causing hurt by the dangerous weapon to the victim and sentenced for R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/- to each of the appellants in default of payment of fine they should further undergo R.I. for one month. The appellants are remained in jail from 10.11.2014 till 17.12.2019, they are entitle for set-off of their undergone period. With this modification, the appeal is partly allowed.

¶38

The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall continue for further period of six month as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C

¶39

The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

( Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ) Judge

¶42

Vaishali

Samaru Manjhi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samaru Manjhi 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

Dadan Ram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Sonamati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coal Filed Ltd. Vs Nanki Prasad

Chand Baig Vs Ganga Prasad Patre

Saurabh Singh Vs Surguja University

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Vs Vishal @ Rahul Rajwade