Partly allowed

Pater Sai v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jun 2024CRA/812/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempting to murder under Section 307 IPC. The High Court, relying on the absence of medical opinion that injuries were life-threatening, held the case did not fall under Section 307. The conviction was altered to Sections 324 and 325 IPC, and the sentence was set off against the period already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC altered to Sections 324 and 325 IPC. Sentence set off against period already undergone. Fine imposed.

Pater Sai Vs State of C.G. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 2002

¶5

Pater Sai S/o Deochand Singh Kanwar, Aged About 56 Years, Occupation – Agriculturist, R/o Village Kussu, Police Station – Darima, District Surguja (CG).

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh

¶9

---Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. N. K. Mehta, Advocate For State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (24.06.202 4)

¶12

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 17.07.2002, passed by 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, in S.T. No.355/2001, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months.

¶13

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.07.2001, victim Nanhu Singh (PW-2) along with his wife Sumitra Bai (PW-1) and other villagers were working

¶14

¶15

in the filed of Budhram Kanwar, village Kussu, P.S. Darima, District Surguja. At about 3:30 p.m., when victim Nanhu Singh was going to bring the bundles of paddy plants (बीड़ा धान/धान की गाछी) from another field, appellant Pater Sai assaulted him by a spade, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries on his head, left leg and thigh and fell down unconscious. On hearing scream of the victim when the complainant and other people working nearby rushed there, the appellant ran away from the spot. The victim was taken to PHC, Darima where he was treated by Dr. O. P. Shrivastava (PW-5). The matter was reported to Police Station Darima, pursuant to which FIR (Ex. P-1) was registered against the appellant. Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant, the weapon of offence i.e. spade was seized from the possession of appellant which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along with other articles.

¶16

3. After completion of investigation, appellant was chargesheeted for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and the matter was placed before the jurisdictional criminal court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

¶17

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support of its case and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness.

¶18

5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this

¶19

¶20

appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶21

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that from the statement of Dr. O. P. Shrivastava (PW-5) and the medical report (Ex.P-5) given by him, it is clear that only four injuries were found on the body of the victim Nanhu Singh (PW-2) out of which three injuries were incised wound and one injury was lacerated. According to Dr. M. K. Jain (PW-8), left Tibia and Fibula bone of the victim were found fractured. He submits that the doctor has not opined that the injuries sustained by the victim were dangerous to life, therefore, considering the nature of injuries, the case of the appellant would not fall under Section 307 of IPC as there was no attempt to murder the victim. He submits that if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, at best, the offence under Section 324 or 325 of IPC would be made out and, therefore, the conviction of appellant under Section 307 of I.P.C. may be altered/converted to Section 324 or 325 of I.P.C. and the sentence imposed upon him be reduced to the period already undergone by him, as he has already remained in jail for 9 months 17 days. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelam Bahal & Anr. V. State of Uttarakhand reported in AIR 2010 SC 428.

¶22

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant.

¶23

¶24

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment.

¶25

9. Dr. O. P. Shrivastava (PW-5) who treated the victim at PHC, Darima found the following injuries on the body of the victim:

¶26

i) Lacerated wound, size 4” x 1” x 1/2”, on left leg. ii) Incised wound, size 4” x ¼” x 1/4”, on left thigh

¶27

iii) Incised wound, size 3” x 1/4” x 1/4”, on forehead near right ear

¶28

iv) Incised wound, size 4” x ½” x ½”, on middle of head.

¶29

10. Dr. M. K. Jain (PW-8) has given his report (Ex. P-10) after seeing the X-ray of left leg and head of the victim. According to Dr. M. K. Jain, there was fracture on lower part of left Tibia and Fibula bone but no fracture was found on head. Victim Nanhu Singh (PW-2) in his statement has stated that when he was going from the field of one Kausilya Bai to bring the bundles of paddy plants (बीड़ा धान/धान की गाछी), the appellant assaulted him by a spade, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries on his head, thigh and left leg. The statement of the victim is corroborated by the statement of his wife Sumitra Bai (PW-1) who is said to be an eye witness and was working in the filed of Kausilya Bai. From the statement of these witnesses, the assault made by the appellant to the victim stands proved.

¶30

11. Perusal of the evidence it reflects that the appellant and the victim are real brothers. The appellant assaulted the victim over the issue of cutting the boundaries of the field (खेत का मेड़ काटने को लेकर वि��ाद). From the medical report of the

¶31

¶32

doctors it is evident that there was no grievous injury on head but he received grievous injury as Tibia and Fibula bones of left leg got fractured. The doctor who medically examined the victim has not stated that the injuries caused by the appellant to the victim were dangerous to life.

¶33

12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelam Bahal (supra) has held that since there was no categorical statement made by doctor that injuries caused by appellant No.2 to victim were dangerous to life, no question of convicting appellant No.2 u/s 307 arises. However, appellant No.2 is liable to be convicted u/s 326 in light of statement by victim that he had remained in hospital for fifteen days due to injuries caused to him, therefore, his sentence reduced to period already undergone considering his young age.

¶34

13. In the light of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case and also considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the nature injuries sustained by the victim and the reason for assaulting the victim, it is found that there was no attempt to commit murder of victim Nanhu Singh. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the present case does not fall within the purview of Section 307 of IPC. Instead, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 325 of IPC for causing injuries to the victim on his left leg due to which he suffered fractures on Tibia and Fibula bone. In addition, he is also convicted for the offence under Section 324 of IPC for causing injuries to the victim on his head and thigh.

¶35

14. In that view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is

¶36

¶37

altered/converted to Sections 324 and 325 of IPC and the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him, as he has already remained in jail for about 9 months 17 days. However, the appellant is imposed fine of Rs.5,000 each under sections 324 & 325 of IPC which shall be paid by the appellant within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In default of payment of fine amount, the appellant shall be liable to undergo RI for three months on each count. The fine amount, if any already paid, the same will be adjusted.

¶38

15. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall continue for a further period of 6 months as per Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶39

16. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶40

17. Records of the trial Court be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶43

Khatai

Pater Sai v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pater Sai v. State of C.G.

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

Khushbu Dubey Vs Ramesh Chandra Tiwari

Smt. Sunita Banjare Vs Junaid Jayshi

Santosh Kumar Jha Vs State

Shyam Bihari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Kishor Sen Vs Shripal Prajapati

Rajwaram Yadav Vs Jagdish Prasad @ Madan Dindore