Manwel Lakda @ Amanual Lakda Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Page 1 of 7

¶2

NAFR

¶3

(Cr.A.No.368/2017)

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.368 of 2017

¶6

{Arising out of judgment dated 2-1-2017 in Sessions Trial No.56/2016 of the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh}

¶7

Manwel Lakda @ Amanual Lakda, S/o Duli Lakda, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Charpara, Paathalgaon, District Jashpur, Present Address: Rajendra Sahu, Borbadi Delari, Police Station Punjipathara, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶8

(In Jail) ---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Punjipathara, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant: Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, JJ.

¶14

Judgment On Board

¶15

(17-1-2024)

¶16

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶17

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under

¶18

with a direction to run the sentences concurrently: -

¶19

Conviction	Sentence
Section 302 of the IPC	Imprisonment for life & fine of ₹ 5,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for five months
Section 201 of the IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for one year & fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in default, additional

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

(Cr.A.No.368/2017)

¶22

rigorous imprisonment for one month
Section 323 of the IPC Fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in default, rigorous
imprisonment for one month

¶23

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 6-3-2016 at 6.00 p.m., the appellant along with his wife Karishma Lakda & Bahadur Uraon (now deceased) came back from Gerwani Bazaar to the Bore garden of Gangaram and after some time, the appellant & Bahadur went towards Belari town to eat and drink, and in the night they came back and the appellant & the deceased stayed in the appellant's house, and at 8.15 p.m., both started quarrelling pursuant to which the appellant assaulted Bahadur on his thigh & head and also caused injury to Gangaram (PW-1), who tried to intervene, and thereafter, the appellant is said to have poured kerosene oil on the body of Bahadur and set him ablaze and thereafter, thrown it in the jungle. The matter was informed to Police Station Punjipathra by Gangaram (PW-1) pursuant to which morgue intimation was registered vide Ex.P-19 on the basis of which FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1 and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-8. On the recommendation of panchas, the dead body was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. G.R. Kurre (PW-8) vide postmortem report Ex.P-7 in which cause of death was stated to be septicemic shock due to wounds infection and nature of death is unnatural. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant Ex.P-3, axe and lathi were seized from his possession vide Ex.P-6, axe was sent for chemical analysis to the FSL, Raipur, but blood was not found on the said axe as per the FSL report dated 30-11-

Page 3 of 7

(Cr.A.No.368/2017)

Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After due investigation, the accused / appellant was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 302, 323, 506B & 201 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh, from where the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, received the case on transfer for conducting trial and hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

¶28

The accused / appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The defence has examined none, but exhibited two documents Exs.D-1 & D-2 i.e. statements of Rajkumar Sidar & Anil, respectively, recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, in support of its case.

¶29

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellants under Sections 302, 201 & 323 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred.

¶30

Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that deceased Bahadur Uraon died on account of septicemia / septicemic shock as per postmortem report Ex.P-7 proved by Dr. G.R. Kurre (PW-8) and the deceased died after 10 days of the incident as the incident occurred on 6-3-2016 and death of the deceased took place on 17-3-2016, as such, in

¶31

Page 4 of 7

¶32

(Cr.A.No.368/2017)

¶33

view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, at the most, offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC would be made out against the appellant and the appellant is in jail since 9-3-2016, therefore, it is a fit case where conviction of the appellant can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. Therefore, the appellant be released from jail forthwith by partly allowing the appeal.

¶34

Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State / respondent, would support the impugned judgment and oppose the appeal and submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and it is not the case which should be converted to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

¶35

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶36

The first question whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report Ex.P-7 proved by Dr. G.R. Kurre (PW8), which is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶37

The appellant is said to have caused injuries to deceased Bahadur by axe and also caused burn injuries and the deceased was hospitalised. The deceased sustained burn injuries on 6-3-2016 to the extent of 35% and died on 17-3-2016 after ten days.

¶38

1 (2016) 3 SCC 62

¶39

Page 5 of 7

¶40

(Cr.A.No.368/2017)

¶41

In Sanjay (supra), the death occurred after 62 days of the incident due to occurrence of septicemia and it was indirectly due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, the Supreme Court held that the death not being direct result of the injuries sustained by the deceased, an inference cannot be drawn that the intended injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of the nature to cause death so as to attract Section 300 Thirdly of the IPC and eventually, the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was converted into Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and the accused was awarded sentence of RI for 10 years. It was thus observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 as under :-

¶42

“14. However, in the instant case, it is apparent that the death occurred sixty-two days after the occurrence due to septicaemia and it was indirectly due to the injuries sustained by the deceased. The proximate cause of death on 13-10-1998 was septicaemia which of course was due to the injuries caused in the incident on 11-81998. As noted earlier, as per the evidence of Dr. Laxman Das (PW-9), Roop Singh was discharged from the hospital in good condition and he survived for sixtytwo days. In such facts and circumstances, the prosecution should have elicited from Dr Laxman Das (PW 9) that the head injury sustained by the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No such opinion was elicited either from Dr Laxman Das (PW 9) or from Dr Gulecha (PW 3). Having regard to the fact that Roop Singh survived for sixty-two days and that his condition was stable when he was discharged from the hospital, the Court cannot draw an inference that the intended injury caused was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death so as to attract clause Thirdly of Section 300 IPC.

¶43

In Ganga Dass v. State of Haryana² , the accused gave iron pipe single blow on the head of the deceased and deceased died eighteen days after the occurrence

¶44

2 1994 Supp (1) SCC 534

¶45

Page 6 of 7

¶46

(Cr.A.No.368/2017)

¶47

due to septaecemia and other complications, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC was altered by this Court to Section 304 Part II IPC. This Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 535-36, para 6)

¶48

“6. We find considerable force in this submission. As stated above the occurrence took place on 18-111988 and the deceased died 18 days later on 5-121988 due to septicaemia and other complications. The doctor found only one injury on the head and that was due to single blow inflicted with an iron pipe not with any sharp-edged weapon. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is difficult to hold that the appellant intended to cause death nor it can be said that he intended to cause that particular injury. In any event the medical evidence shows that the injured deceased was operated but unfortunately some complications set in and ultimately he died because of cardiac failure, etc. Under these circumstances, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded thereunder. Instead we convict him under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence him to undergo six years' RI. The sentence of fine of Rs 2000 along with default clause is confirmed. Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed.”

¶49

Reverting to the facts of the case, in the instant case also, the incident is said to have occurred on 6-3-2016 by which the appellant has caused injuries upon the deceased by axe and also caused burn injuries and the deceased died on 17-3-2016 on account of septicemic shock as proved by Dr. G.R. Kurre (PW-8) vide postmortem report Ex.P-7, as such, the deceased died after 11 days of the incident. The deceased died on account of septicemic shock due to wounds infection and therefore it could not be held that the injuries caused by the appellant were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death so as to attract Section 300 Thirdly of the IPC and eventually, conviction of the appellant

¶50

Page 7 of 7

¶51

(Cr.A.No.368/2017)

¶52

under Section 302 of the IPC is converted into Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and he is hereby sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine and default stipulation as imposed by the trial Court. However, his conviction and sentences under Sections 201 & 323 of the IPC shall remain intact.

¶53

The criminal appeal is party allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶54

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and action, if any. A certified copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence.

¶55

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶56

Soma

Manwel Lakda @ Amanual Lakda v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manwel Lakda @ Amanual Lakda v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narsingh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Dhruv Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Baleshwar Dhada @ Bali Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Horil @ Krishna Kumar Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramprasad Alias Ramu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Radheshyam Kurre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh