Ashik Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

2025:CGHC:22896

ASHOK SAHU

NAFR

Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.06.11 16:56:09 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 1070 of 2022

¶8

{Arising out of judgment dated 23.09.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No.07/2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur}

¶9

Ashik Sidar, S/o. Suresh Sidar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o. Village Surangpani School Para, Police Choki Kotba, Thana Bag Bahar, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bagbahar, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

: For Appellant Mr. N.K.Malviya, Advocate : For Respondent Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer

¶15

(Single Bench)

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Judgment on Board

(1 0.06.2025)

2

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶21

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 23.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.07/2021, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

¶22

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.12.2020 at night 11:00 P.M. at village Surangpani, Police Chowki – Kotba, Police Station- Bagbahar, the appellant herein assaulted Ratan Sai Sidar (now deceased) by wooden log (hatka), by which he suffered grievous injury on his head and died; thereby the offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, zero FIR was registered vide Ex.P-3 and numbered FIR was registered vide Ex.P-29. Zero Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-7 and numbered Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-30, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-6 and dead body of deceased Ratan Sai Sidar was

¶23

3

¶24

subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. A.S.Thakur (PW-1), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-1, according to which, cause of death was stated to be coma as a result of head injury and death was homicidal in nature. After due investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted for the aforesaid offence before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions 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.

¶25

During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶26

The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, held the death to be homicidal in nature and further held that the appellant had no intention to cause death but he must have had knowledge that the injury caused by him is likely to cause death and

¶27

4

¶28

proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶29

Mr. N.K.Malviya, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that only single blow was caused by the appellant that too by wooden log (hatka), which is used for closing the doors in the villages and the date of offence is 16.12.2020 and the deceased died on 18.12.2020 i.e. after two days of the incident. He further submits that the appellant is young man, aged about 25 years and he has no criminal antecedents, therefore, the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him be reduced to 5 years and the appeal be allowed in part. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Anbazhagan v. The State

¶30

Represented by the Inspector Of Police1 wherein also single injury was inflicted by the accused to deceased therein and the Supreme Court has reduced the sentence from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to 5 years rigorous imprisonment.

¶31

Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been

¶32

1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 550 : 2023 INSC 632

¶33

5

¶34

able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

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

¶36

It is true that the trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. as the appellant had no intention to cause death, but he must have had knowledge that the injury caused by him is likely to cause death. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Anbazhagan (supra) may be noticed herein.

¶37

“60. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:-

¶38

(1) ...xxx...xxx… (2) ...xxx...xxx… (3) ...xxx...xxx… (4) ...xxx...xxx… (5) ...xxx...xxx… (6) ...xxx...xxx...

¶39

6

¶40

(7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in establishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC.

¶41

(8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn

¶42

7

¶43

from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack.

¶44

(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries.

¶45

(10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case.

¶46

(11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course

¶47

8

¶48

of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies.

¶49

(12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

¶50

Looking at the overall evidence on record, we find it difficult to come to the conclusion that when the appellant struck the deceased with the weapon of offence, he intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The weapon of offence in the present case is a common agriculture tool. If a man is hit with a weed axe on the head with sufficient force, it is bound to cause, as here, death. It is true that the injuries shown in the post mortem report are fracture of the parietal

¶51

9

¶52

bone as well as the temporal bone. The deceased died on account of the cerebral compression i.e. internal head injuries. However, the moot question is – whether that by itself is sufficient to draw an inference that the appellant intended to cause such bodily injury as was sufficient to cause death. We are of the view that the appellant could only be attributed with the knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury which was likely to cause the death. It is in such circumstances that we are inclined to take the view that the case on hand does not fall within clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC.”

¶53

In the instant case, admittedly the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. as the trial Court has clearly held that the appellant had no intention to cause death, but he must have had knowledge that the injury caused by him is likely to cause death and furthermore, the appellant had caused only single injury to the deceased on 16.12.2020 and the deceased died after two days i.e. on 18.12.2020 and the weapon of offence is wooden log (hatka), which is used for closing the doors in the villages.

¶54

In view of the above stated facts, the sentence awarded to the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years is

¶55

10

¶56

reduced to 6 years rigorous imprisonment. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is partly allowed.

¶57

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

¶58

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶59

Ashok

Ashik Sidar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashik Sidar 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

Omprakash Rathiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harpal Sing Rajput Vs State Govt. Of C.g.

H. C. Prakash Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sheikh Rahman Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ritu Selot Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. C S P G C L

Jatashankar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh