Partly allowed

Dinesh Kumar Ekka And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2024CRA/474/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants appealed against conviction and sentence for grievous hurt and wounding. High Court found death resulted from pre-existing disease, reducing conviction to Section 325 IPC and remitted the death penalty component.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 304 IPC altered to Section 325 IPC; death sentence removed; Fine affirmed; Additional imprisonment of 1 year granted.

Dinesh Kumar Ekka And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.474 of 2015

¶5

1. Dinesh Kumar Ekka, son of Peelsai Ekka, Caste Uraon, aged about 24 years,

¶6

2. Rajkumar Kumar Ekka, son of Peelsai Ekka, Caste Uraon, aged about 21 years, Both residents of Village Uraon Para, Police Station Lundra, Civil and Revenue District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent

¶10

For Appellants	: Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent	: Shri Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer

¶11

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

¶12

Judgment on Board

¶13

(18.7.202 4)

¶14

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

¶15

1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellants herein have preferred this criminal appeal calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

¶16

¶17

dated 31.3.2015 passed by the 6^th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.30 of 2014 by which they have been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶18

Conviction	Sentenc	e
Under Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code	Life imprisonm fine of Rs.2,500, of payment additional imprisonment months	ent i in de th rigo for	and i fault ereof, rous 6
Under Section 304	Life imprisonm	ent	and
Part I/34 of the Indian Penal Code	fine of Rs.2,500, of payment additional imprisonment months	i in de th rigo for	i fault ereof, rous 6
The jail sentence conc	s are directed to urrently	run

¶19

2. Name of deceased is Jagiya Toppo. According to the case of prosecution, son of Jagiya Toppo, namely, Manjhi Toppo (PW1) had taken away sister of the Appellants, namely, Dhaneshwari (PW3) and due to this enmity the Appellants entered the house of Jagiya Toppo on 17.12.2013 at about 12 O’clock in the night and assaulted Jagiya Toppo with lathi and caused fracture in his right arm and other injuries on his body. On 18.12.2013 he was taken to a village

¶20

¶21

vaidya for treatment and was thereafter brought back home. On his falling seriously ill, on 20.12.2013 he was admitted in Mission Hospital, but, during treatment he died on 20.12.2013 itself. Sudden death of Jagiya Toppo was reported in Police Station Gandhi Nagar by Mission Hospital vide Ex.P26. Inquest (Ex.P2) was conducted. Morgue Intimation (Ex.P27) was recorded in Police Station Lundra. Spot maps (Ex.P4 and P5) were prepared. Dead body of Jagiya Toppo was sent for post mortem examination. Post mortem report is Ex.P24 in which Dr. K.R. Tekam (PW16), who conducted the post mortem examination, found that mode of death was shock caused by chronic hepatopulmonary disease leading to cardiopulmonary arrest. First Information Report (Ex.P18) was registered against the Appellants. From Appellant Dinesh, one wild firewood without containing any blood stain was seized in presence of witnesses vide Ex.P7. From Appellant Rajkumar, one wild firewood without containing any blood stain was seized in presence of witnesses vide Ex.P8. The Appellants were arrested vide Ex.P9 and P10. Query

¶22

¶23

Report (Ex.P13) regarding two wood sticks and Query Reports (Ex.P14, P26A and P27A) regarding death of the deceased were obtained. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. FSL Report is Ex.P28. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants. The Trial Court framed charges against them.

¶24

3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The Appellants did not examine any witness in support of their defence, but, they exhibited 1 document.

¶25

4. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the instant appeal.

¶26

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the Appellants have been convicted without there being reliable evidence on record. The

¶27

¶28

prosecution has completely failed to prove the guilt of the Appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The medical evidence clearly goes to show that the death occurred due to an old disease not by any assault. The Appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. They deserve to be acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶29

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellants.

¶30

7. We have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶31

8. So far as the ofence under Section 460 IPC is f concerned, Manjhi Toppo (PW1), son of the deceased, has deposed that in the fateful night at about 12 O’clock he was present along with his father Jagiya Toppo (the deceased) at home. At that time, the Appellants kicked the door of their house, they were in drunken state and when his father Jagiya Toppo

¶32

¶33

came out they beat him with wooden stick and when this witness came out he was also assaulted by the Appellants. As a result of the assault, his father sustained fracture in right arm and other injuries on his body.

¶34

9. Dilip Toppo (PW7), other son of the deceased, has deposed that in the fateful night when he reached the house of his father he witnessed that the Appellants were assaulting his father with lathi and as a result of the assault right arm of his father had sustained fracture and he had also sufered other injuries. f

¶35

10. The evidence of Manjhi Toppo (PW1) and Dilip Toppo (PW7) is supported by the statements of Smt. Filomina (PW9), Smt. Dulebai (PW5), Gaddi Ekka (PW8) and Dhaneshwari (PW3). The evidence of these witnesses clearly establishes that in the fateful night the Appellants forcefully entered the house of the deceased, assaulted him and caused him injuries including fracture in his right arm. Thus, the ofence f under Section 460 IPC is proved against the Appellants.

¶36

¶37

11. As regards the ofence under Section 304 Part I read f with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with other injuries sufered by the deceased the only injury f reported to be grievous in nature was fracture in his right arm (Ex.P24). No injury was found on any of the vital parts of the body of the deceased. In the Post Mortem Report (Ex.P24), which is proved by Dr. K.R. Tekam (PW16), the mode of death is reported to be shock caused by chronic hepatopulmonary disease leading to cardiopulmonary arrest. Further, Query Reports (Ex.P26A and P27A) obtained regarding death of the deceased also clearly state that the deceased died due to old disease of lungs, heart and liver and his death had no connection with the injuries sufered f by him. Even the seizures (Ex.P7 and P8) made from the Appellants show that there was no blood stain on the wood seized from them. In the FSL examination also (Ex.P28), no blood was found on the seized articles (wood).

¶38

12. Thus, we f i nd that the act of the Appellants was not with the intention to cause death of the deceased or their act was not of causing such bodily injury as is

¶39

¶40

likely to cause death. Therefore, we alter the conviction of the Appellants from Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶41

13. As regards the sentence part, we set aside the sentence imposed upon the Appellants against the conviction under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.

¶42

14. The Appellants are reported to be on bail. They have remained in jail from 12.2.2014 to 24.11.2015, i.e., for 1 year 9 months and 12 days. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, we sentence the Appellants to the above period already undergone by them for their conviction under Section 460 IPC and for their conviction under Section 325/34 IPC they are sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The f i ne sentence imposed upon them for the conviction under Section 460 IPC is afrmed. Against their conviction under Section fi 325/34 IPC, they are sentenced with f i ne of Rs.2,500 each and in default of payment thereof they shall be

¶43

¶44

liable to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. If any amount is already paid towards f i ne, the same shall be adjusted in the amount of f i ne imposed today.

¶45

15. The criminal appeal is allowed in part to the extent shown above.

¶46

16. Records of the Trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for necessary compliance.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge

¶50

Gopal

Dinesh Kumar Ekka And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Ekka And Anr. 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

Hemlal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kunjbihari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishnu Sevay Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Toshan Bhaskar @ Raju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Singh @ Manager Vs State Of Chhattisgarh