Back
2013 Supreme(Chh) 264
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Satish K. Agnihotri, Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ.
DHANRAJ & OTHERS – Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2009
Decided On : 5-9-2013
Shri Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellants.
Shri Akhil Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor and Shri Surya Kant Mishra, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondent.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 302 and 323 – Rigorous imprisonment – Deceased – Appeal is directed against judgment impugned judgment accused/appellants business of manufacturing bricks. Kuntibai (PW-5) and deceased went to forest for manufacturing bricks, two months prior to date of incident – Appellant Dhanraj also went to forest for manufacturing bricks alogwith his wife – Appellant Dhanraj suspected Kuntibai and her husband Ramavtar (deceased) that they were performing witchery and some quarrel took place between deceased and appellant Dhanraj deceased Ramavtar and Kuntibai were present in their house – Held, Case skull and near about 3 abrasions were found on back of deceased conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased opined in his report cause of death was coma due to head injury was injury was multiple fractures of skull and brain membrane and some portion of brain had also come out absence of common object of death of deceased facts and circumstances of case all accused persons cannot be said to have common object to commit murder of deceased though they had knowledge that blows given could likely to cause death anyone of accused exceeded common object and acted on his own that would be his individual act – Appeal Partly Allowed.
Radhe Shyam Sharma, J. :-
1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 10-07-2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Sessions Trial No.38/08. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellants Dhanraj, Dharmraj @ Darvan @ Konda, Rajesh @ Butiya, Gajraj @ Dhani and Daniram @ Padamraj have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 302/149 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months,
Under Section 325/149 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months,
Under Section 323/149 IPC Simple imprisonment for 6 months,
Under Section 148 IPC (to appellants Dhanraj, Dharmraj @ Darvan @ Konda, Rajesh @ Butiya and Gajraj @ Dhani) Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year,
Under Section 147 IPC (to appellant Daniram @ Padamraj) Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months,
2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
Kuntibai (PW-5) and her husband Ramavtar (deceased) was engaged in a business of manufacturing bricks. Kuntibai (PW-5) and the deceased went to the forest for manufacturing bricks, two months prior to the date of incident. Appellant Dhanraj also went to the forest for manufacturing bricks alogwith his wife. Appellant Dhanraj suspected Kuntibai (PW-5) and her husband Ramavtar (deceased) that they were performing witchery (tonha) and some quarrel took place between the deceased and appellant Dhanraj. On 20th April, 2008 at about 7.00 pm, deceased Ramavtar and Kuntibai (PW-5) were present in their house. At that time, appellant Dhanraj came to their house, Kuntibai (PW -5) asked appellant Dhanraj for taking meal. Appellant Dhanraj refused and said that she had abused him, therefore, he will not take meal at their house and abused Kuntibai (PW-5).
Kuntibai (PW-5) and deceased Ramavtar, were going to Police Station Pandariya for lodging a report. When they reached near Durjabandh Tank, appellant Dhanraj, Dharamraj, @ Darvan @ Konda, Rajesh @ Butiya and Gajraj @ Dhani and Daniram @ Padamraj surrounded the deceased and Kuntibai (PW5) and assaulted the deceased. The deceased sustained injuries on his head and fell down. His brain material came out and when Kuntibai (PW-5) tried to save her husband (the deceased), the appellants assaulted her also. At that time, Shankar (PW-6) reached there. The appellants also assaulted Shankar (PW-6). Shankar (PW-6.) ran away from the place of occurrence due to fear. Kuntibai (PW-5) came back to her house and narrated the incident to her another son Dinesh (PW-1). Thereafter, Kuntibai (PW-5) went to Police Station Pandariya along with Dinesh (PW-1) and lodged Merg Intimation (Ex.P-13) and First Information Report (Ex.P-12) in Police Station Pandariya. Kuntibai (PW5) and Shankar (PW-6) were sent to Community Health Center (CHC), Pandariya for medical examination. Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/1A) to panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P-1) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent to CHC, Pandariya vide Ex.P-3A. Dr. S.N. Yadav (PW-3) conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and gave his report (Ex.-P/3) finding (i) blood spread over forehead, nose, neck, chest and mouth and presence of clotted blood (ii) multiple fracture on the skull, brain material had come out from the skull (iii) abrasions (a) 8cm x 3cm (b) 10cm x 3cm (c) 7cm x 2cm on back. He opined that the cause of death was coma, due to head injury caused by hard and blunt object and the injuries were antemortem in nature. Dr. S.N. Yadav (PW-3) examined Kuntibai (PW-5) and gave his report (Ex.-P/s4) finding (i) abrasion on upper lip and broken two teeth (ii) abrasions on forehead and right thigh. He opined that the injuries were grievous in nature and caused b
