Ramsu Kamar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 . Though the matter was listed for consideration on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶15

2 . The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Dhamtari, in Sessions Trial No.39/2022 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for one year.

¶16

2

¶17

3 . Brief facts of the case are that, on 17.07.2022 some altercation took place between the wife of appellant and complainant and the complainant started trowing utensils and other household articles in the house of appellant which was informed by his wife to him and when the complainant was sitting near electric pole in the filed, the appellant gave an arrow blow on the abdomen of the complainant by which he received penetrative injury and his omentum came out from his body. FIR, Ex.P/14 was lodged on 17.07.2022 by one Birjhu Kumar, PW-4 on which the offence under Section 307 IPC was registered against the appellant. The complainant was taken to hospital where he was treated by PW-13, Dr.Vibha Chedaiha, who after the medical examination of the complainant gave her report Ex.P/21. During the treatment, she found one penetrative wound on the left side of Chest of complainant between 6^th & 7^th Rib which was the entry wound from which abdominal contents were coming out from wound. After primary treatment given to the patient, he was refereed to higher centre for further management. She opined that injury was grievous hurt. The appellant was arrested on 18.07.2022 and on his memorandum Ex.P/8, one motorcycle vide memo Ex.P/9, one bloodstained Gamchha vide Ex.P/10 and one bloodstained arrow vide Ex.P/11 were seized.

¶18

4 . Statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagri for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Dhamtari from where the same was transferred to trial court for its trial. The trial

¶19

3

¶20

court framed charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial.

¶21

5 . In order to prove the offence against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence.

¶22

6 . After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

¶23

7 . Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not challenging his conviction part, but challenging the sentence part awarded to him as excessive sentence has been awarded for the alleged offence. The appellant is in jail since 18.07.2022. Due to sudden quarrel he gave only one arrow blow which was not intentional assault upon the complainant. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced for the period already undergone. The offence under Section 307 IPC does not provide any minimum sentence. The incident is of the year, 2022 and the appellant is presently 47 years old having innumerable family responsibilities and therefore the sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone.

¶24

8 . On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that looking to the nature of injuries and the manner in which the complainant was being assaulted, the appellant is not entitled for any leniency. The allegation

¶25

4

¶26

against the appellant has duly been supported by the complainant PW1 and witness PW-4, Birjhu Kumar as also PW-13, Dr. Vibha Chedaiha who treated the complainant. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

9 . I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court.

¶28

10. Although the appellant is not challenging his conviction part, however, this court is of the opinion that it has to be looked into about involvement of the appellant in the offence in question. PW-1 is the complainant, who stated in his evidence that he owns ½ Acre of land in the village in which the appellant was cultivating. There was a dispute exist between them with respect to said land. On the date of incident some altercation took place between both the families and when he was sitting near electric pole in the field, the wife of appellant called him (appellant), he came there and gave an arrow blow on his abdomen by which his omentum came out from his body. The incident was witnessed by Ravendra Gond and Thamman Sahu. In his cross examination, but for minor omission or contradiction, nothing could be extracted by the defence so that his evidence can be disbelieved.

¶29

11. Likewise, from the evidence of PW-4, Birjhu Kumar, the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question has been proved that he is the author of injury found on the body of complainant.

¶30

12. PW-13, Dr. Vibha Chedaiha, who treated the complainant at Medical College Hospital, Raipur, has proved the injury found on the body of complainant and stated that the injury was grievous in nature. She gave MLC Report Ex.P/21. She also gave query report Ex.P/23 in

¶31

5

¶32

which she opined that death was possible if the victim could not have been treated in time. She also remain firm in her cross examination with respect to treatment given to complainant and nature of injuries she found on the body of complainant.

¶33

13. Thus, from all the aforesaid evidences, this court is of the opinion that there are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellant is guilty for the offence of Section 307 IPC, which the trial court has rightly considered while appreciating the evidence available on record. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC is upheld.

¶34

14. So far as sentence awarded to appellant is concerned, the submission of the appellant is that presently the appellant is aged about 47 years having innumerable family responsibilities, the complaint is his brother, the incident was occurred in a heat of passion and sudden provocation, he was not intended to give fatal blow to the complainant and therefore, the sentence awarded to the appellant is excessive and the same may be reduced for the period already undergone by him as the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2022 and the offence under Section 307 IPC does not provide any minimum sentence.

¶35

15. In Mohammad Giasuddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287 in paragraph 9 of its judgment, it was held as under:

¶36

“9. Western jurisdiction and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817 : "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested : 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it. George Micodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education.' It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub-culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in

¶37

6

¶38

penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw : 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield : 'If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences.' In the same strain a British Buddhist-Christian Judge, speaking to a BBC reporter underscored the role of compassion : "Circuit Judge Christmas Humphreys told the BBC reporter recently that a judge looks 'at the man in the dock in a different way : not just a criminal to be punished, but a fellow human being, another form of life who is also a form of the same one life as oneself.' In the context of karuna and punishment for karma the same Judge said : 'The two things are not incompatible. You do punish him for what he did, but you bring in a quality of what is sometimes called mercy, rather than an emotional hate against the man for doing something harmful. You feel with him; that is what compassion means."

¶39

16. Considering the submissions made by the parties; the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident occurred, the nature of injuries found on the body of victim and also in view of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Giasuddin (Supra), I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be sub-served if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced.

¶40

17. Accordingly, while maintaining conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the sentence awarded to him is reduced to RI for 4 years instead of RI for 10 years. The fine sentence and default stipulation awarded by the trial court shall remain intact. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 18.07.2022. He shall undergo the entire sentence as modified by this court.

¶41

18. With the aforesaid alteration/modification, the appeal is partly allowed .

¶42

19. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned

¶43

7

¶44

Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶45

20. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶46

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶47

inder

Ramsu Kamar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsu Kamar 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

Ramratan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khageshwar Prasad (Since Died) Through LRs Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kiran Diwakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Dewangan Vs M/S Jai Vijay Textiles

Jhitku Manjhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tilak Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh