Partly allowed

Ram Lal Lakara v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2024CRA/1921/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the appeal in part, holding that injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) was converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-II IPC). The appellant was held entitled to the sentence already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC; released from jail forthwith as sentence equals time spent in custody.

Ram Lal Lakara Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 1921 of 20 17

¶5

[Arising out of judgment dated 27.11.2017, passed in Sessions Case No.32 of 2016 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Ram Lal Lakara), by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)]

¶6

Ram Lal Lakara, Son of Barat Ram Lakara, aged about 24 years, Resident of Village Pachpedi, Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

---- Appellant

(In jail)

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. R.V. Rajvade, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Adv.

¶13

Division Bench

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶15

Judgment on Board (07.03.2024)

¶16

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶17

(1) This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused herein under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG) in Sessions Case No.32 of 2016, whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of

¶18

Page 2 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶19

Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year.

¶20

(2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.06.2016, at about 12:00 noon, at Village Pachpedi, within the ambit of Police Station Sarangarh, District Raigarh (CG), in front of the house of the complainant, namely, Narayan Tandan (PW-12), the accused-appellant herein firstly abused the father of the complainant, namely, Karru Tandan (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) with filthy words and also threatened him to kill and, in furtherance thereof, assaulted him by means of iron pipe/ motor-cycle shockup on his head and back, due to which deceased suffered grievous injuries and died later on during the course of his treatment in the hospital on 14.06.2016 and, thereby, is said to have committed offences under Sections 302, 294 & 506 (Part-II) of IPC.

¶21

(3) The further case of the prosecution is that immediately after the incident, the deceased was initially escorted to Community Health Center (CHC), Sarangarh, wherein he was medically examined by Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-09) who gave his MLC reports (Ex.P/15 & P/16) and, thereafter, vide Ex.P/13, on the same day (i.e. on 06.06.2016), the deceased was referred to Sanjivani Nursing Home, Raigarh for better treatment. However, after the aforesaid incident was reported by the son of the deceased,

¶22

Page 3 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶23

namely, Narayan Tandan (PW-12), initially FIR (Ex.P/38) was registered by the police against the appellant for offences under Sections 294, 506 & 323 of IPC and, after the death of the deceased, additional offence under Section 302 of IPC was also added against the appellant. After the deceased, merg intimation was also registered by the police vide Ex.P/39 and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/04 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/07. Nazari Naksha and panchnama were also prepared vide Ex.P/09 & Ex.P/10 respectively.

¶24

(4) The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem report (Ex.P/14), conducted by Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-09), it was opined that the cause of death of deceased is hemorrhage and shock due to head injury and nature of death is homicidal. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/42 and his medical examination was conducted vide MLC report (Ex.P/44). At the instance of the appellant, one iron pipe/ motor-cycle shockup was seized vide Ex.P/02 and clothes of the deceased (i.e. gamcha , lungi and undergarment) were seized vide Ex.P/06. The aforesaid seized article were sent for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P/47) it has been opined that blood stains were found on the clothes of the deceased, whereas no blood was found on the iron pipe/motor-cycle

¶25

Page 4 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶26

shockup, which was seized at that instance of the appellant. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sarangarh and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/ accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

¶27

(5) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents, whereas the appellant in support of his defence, though not examined any witness, but exhibited 02 documents.

¶28

(6) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant herein only for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶29

(7) Mr. R.V. Rajvade, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence

¶30

Page 5 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶31

beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that at best offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) would be made out against the appellant herein because the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased in spur of the moment and there was no motive or premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under anger and in heat of passion the appellant assaulted the deceased, due to which he suffered grievous injuries, which were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and died later on during the course of his treatment in the hospital on 14.06.2016, i.e. 08 days after the incident. As such, the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and would not fall within the purview of Section 300 Thirdly of IPC and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of IPC and as the appellant is in jail since 20.06.2016 i.e. almost 07 years 07 months, he be sentenced for the period already undergone by him. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part.

¶32

(8) Per-contra , learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. In view of the statements

¶33

Page 6 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶34

of prosecution witnesses, specially Manoj Tandan (PW-03), Samaru Tandan (PW-05) and Narayan Tandan (PW-12) coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. It is also submitted that Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC is not attracted in this case and it is not the case where conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC requires to be altered to Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

(9) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶36

(10) The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/14), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of deceased is hemorrhage and shock due to head injury and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-09). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) and the statement of Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-09), who has conducted postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is

¶37

Page 7 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶38

correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirm the said finding.

¶39

(11) Now, the next question would be whether the accusedappellant herein has caused injuries over the body of the deceased, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the statements of two eye-witnesses, namely, Manoj Tandan (PW-03) and Narayan Tandan (PW-12) and that of Samaru Tandan (PW-05). A conjoint reading of the statements of aforesaid witnesses would show that they have clearly stated in their statements before the Court that on the date and time of the offence, the appellant herein firstly abused the deceased and, thereafter, assaulted him by means of iron pipe/motor-cycle shockup, due to which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died later on during the course of his treatment in the hospital on 14.06.2016, i.e. 8 days after the incident. All the aforesaid witnesses were subjected to crossexamination by the prosecution, but nothing could be extracted from them to hold that they not seen the incident or telling lie before the Court in order to falsely implicate the appellant herein and remain consistent/firm in their version. As such, their testimonies inspire confidence and seems to be trustworthy, therefore, can be relied upon. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid

¶40

Page 8 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶41

evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant-accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased, due to which deceased succumbed to the injuries and died. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding that it is the appellant-accused who has caused injuries over the body of the deceased, due to which he died, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

¶42

(12) The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, which is, whether the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and would not attract Section 300 Thirdly of IPC and, therefore, his conviction can be converted to Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant?

¶43

(13) At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the injuries suffered by the deceased and other medical evidence available on record in this regard, for which, the statement of Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-12), who medically examined the deceased immediately after the incident at CHC, Sarangarh and gave MLC reports (Ex.P/15 & P/16) and has also conducted postmortem of his dead-body and gave PM report (Ex.P/14) after his death, would have relevancy. As per Para-08 of his statement, he has clearly stated that upon initial examination on 06.06.2016, when the deceased

¶44

Page 9 of 13 IN

¶45

(Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶46

was alive, following three injuries were found on the body of the deceased:

¶47

(i) bruised wound 7 x 0.5 cm on the left part of the head red in colour;

¶48

(ii) bruised wound 8 x 0.5 cm alongwith swelling 2.5 x 1.5 cm on the lower part of the head red in colour and

¶49

(iii) swelling 8 x 2.5 cm on the back side over left scapula region and same was also red in colour.

¶50

(14) Furthermore, as per Para-12 of the statement of Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-12), he has specifically stated that no fracture on any bone was found over the body of the deceased, either of his head or on any other part of the body. However, the deceased died on 14.06.2016 during the course of his treatment at Sanjivni Nuring Home, Raigarh i.e. after 08 days from the date of incident.

¶51

(15) The Supreme Court in the matter of Nankaunoo v. State of

¶52

Uttar Pradesh 1 held in Paras-12 & 13 as under :

¶53

12. The emphasis in clause three of Section 300 IPC is on the sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The sufficiency is the high probability of death in the ordinary course of nature. When the sufficiency exists and death follows, causing of such injury is intended and causing of such offence is murder. For ascertaining the sufficiency of the injury, sometimes the nature of the weapon used, sometimes the part of the body on which the injury is caused and

¶54

1 016) 3 SCC 317

¶55

Page 10 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶56

sometimes both are relevant. Depending on the nature of weapon used and situs of the injury, in some cases, the sufficiency of injury to cause death in the ordinary course of nature must be proved and cannot be inferred from the fact that death has, in fact, taken place.

¶57

13. Keeping in view the above principles, when we examine the facts of the present case, the deceased sustained gunshot wound of entry 1½” x 1½” on the back and inner part of left thigh, six gunshot wounds of exit each 1/3” x 1/3” in size in front and middle left thigh. Due to the occurrence in the morning at the barber shop of the deceased, the appellant emerged from the northern side of the grove carrying pistol in his hand and fired at the deceased. The weapon used and the manner in which attack was made and the injury was inflicted due to premeditation clearly establish that the appellant intended to cause the injury. Once it is established that the accused intentionally inflicted the injury, then the offence would be murder, if it is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. We find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant the injury was on the inner part of left thigh, which is the non-vital organ. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the gunshot injury was caused in the inner part of left thigh, the sufficiency of injury to cause death must be proved and cannot be inferred from the fact that death has taken place. But the prosecution has not elicited from the doctors that the gunshot injury on the inner part of left thigh caused rupture of any important blood vessel and that it was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Keeping in view the situs and nature of injury and in the absence of evidence elicited from the doctor that the said injury was

¶58

Page 11 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶59

sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC should be under Section 304 Part 1 IPC.

¶60

(16) Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in above-mentioned judgment, it is quite vivid that as per the statements of two eyewitnesses, namely, Manoj Tandan (PW-03) and Narayan Tandan (PW-12) and that of Samaru Tandan (PW-05), though the appellant herein has caused injuries over the body of the deceased, but admittedly, the deceased died during the course of his treatment in the hospital on 14.06.2016, i.e. 08 days after the incident and, the doctor who has medically examined the deceased and conducted postmortem of his dead-body as well, namely, Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-12), has found three injuries mentioned hereinabove over the body of the deceased and no fracture of any bone was found over the his body, either on his head or on any other part of the body and, furthermore, Dr. B.P. Sai (PW-12) nowhere states that the injuries caused by the appellant herein over the body of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death, therefore, keeping in view the situs and nature of injuries suffered by the deceased, in absence of evidence given by the doctor that the said injuries were sufficient to cause his death, we are of the considered opinion

¶61

Page 12 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶62

that the act of the appellant herein is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and would not fall within the purview of Section 300 Thirdly of IPC. However, looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased, though the appellant had no intention, but he must have had knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him on the body of the deceased would likely to cause his death and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC can be altered/converted to Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC.

¶63

(17) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as well as the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. Considering that there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and the injuries caused by him were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and, since he remained in jail from 20.06.2016 i.e. for more than 07 years and 07 months, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine sentence and default stipulation imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain intact. Consequently, the appellant be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter/crime.

¶64

Page 13 of 13 IN (Criminal Appeal No.1921 of 2017)

¶65

(18) This criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶66

(19) Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action, if any.

¶67

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶68

s@if

Ram Lal Lakara v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal Lakara 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

Lukesh Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Hemal Bagh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manohar Bargah and another Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Balleshwar Nageshia Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Mishra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Baansdev @ Anil Vs State Of Chhattisgarh