Back
2013 Supreme(Chh) 276
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Shri Yatindra Singh, C.J. & Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
STATE OF C.G.
Vs.
HARIRAM RAY & OTHERS.
HARIRAM RAY
Vs.
STATE OF C.G.
SURESH KUMAR RAI & OTHERS
Vs.
STATE OF C.G.
Cr.Re. No. 07 of 2013, Cr.A. No. 545 of 2013, Cr.A. No. 628 of 2013
Decided on : 18-9-2013
Mr. Praveen Das, Govt. Advocate, for the State.
Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate, for the Appellant/accused-Hariram Ray (A-1).
Mr. Anoop Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellants/accused - Suresh Kumar Rai, Raju @ Rajesh Rai and Fansh Bai (A-2 to A-4).
Headnote:
Constitution of India – Article 14 and 21 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 201, 304, 32, 307, 436, 303 and 96 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 354 – Evidence Act – Section 27 and 105 – Imprisonment – Mandatory Sentence of Death – Criminal Jurisprudence – Appellant-Hariram Suresh Kumar Naindas was father of deceased-Motilal and Deceased Dasoda Bai was wife of Motilal two injured witnesses namely- Umendram are son and daughter of deceased deceased and accused persons were residing in two separate houses in village Chamari houses were situated in close proximity – Case of prosecution is that members of both families were engaged in brokerage and there was a dispute among them regarding payment of brokerage money deceased persons were present in their house allegations are that appellants came there having sword tabbal, lathi and attacked over deceased persons who sustained multiple serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries – Held, No material to substantiate said argument except that some blood lining was found case in which accused persons had also sustained some injuries nobody could say that blood stains found on way were that of deceased only – We have already held that it was not proved that any of deceased persons had gone to house of accused persons or had put house of accused persons on fire casual argument has been advanced by counsel for appellants which is not supported by materials available on record we are unable to accept argument of right of private defence raised by counsel for appellants – Learned Sessions Judge has convicted only one accused sole ground that he was earlier convicted and appeal against his conviction was pending. During course of arguments was brought to our notice by counsel for appellant-Hariram appeal filed by appellant has already been disposed of and appellant has been acquitted other appellants have been convicted clear that according to Sessions Judge four accused persons had shared common intention to commit murder of deceased persons and case of Hariram special case only on ground that he was a life-convict which would call and for this only death punishment was awarded to him – Appeal Partly Allowed.
As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :-
1. These appeals and the reference arise out of a common judgment dated 25th of April, 2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 16/2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Bilaspur (C.G.). By the impugnedjudgn1ent, the appellants/accused persons have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently :-
Conviction Sentence
Appellant- Hariram (A-1) :
u/S 303 IPC (in three counts) Death sentence (Capital punishment)
u/S 201 IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-
with default sentence of imprisonment for 3 months
Appellant- Suresh Kumar Rai, Raju @ Rajesh Rai and Smt. Fansh Bai (A-2 to A-4) :
u/Ss 302/34 IPC (in three counts) Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.
2,000/- with default sentence of imprisonment for 6 months
u/S 201 IPC R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/-
with default sentence of imprison-ment for 3 months
(Other- sentences awarded to all the appellants A-1 to A-4)
u/Ss 307/34 IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.
1,000/with default sentence of
imprisonment for 3 months
u/Ss 307/34 IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of
imprisonment for 3 months
u/S 449 IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of
Rs.1,000/- with default sentence of
imprisonment for 3 months
u/S 436 IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.
1,000/with default sentence of imprisonment for 3 months
2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE :
2.1 Three persons namely- Naindas, Motilal and Dasoda Bai lost their lives in the incident which took place on 20.11.2008 at about 8.00 a.m.. Two witnesses namely- Umendram (PW. 10) and Manisha (PW -11) got injured as their lives were also attempted.
2.2 Appellants (A-1 to A-4) and the deceased and injured persons were members of two branches of the same family. Appellant-Hariram (A-1) is father of appellants-Suresh Kumar (A-2) and Raju @ Rajesh (A-3). Appellant - Fansh Bai (A-4) is wife of Hariram (A-1). Deceased- Naindas was father of deceased-Motilal and Deceased- Dasoda Bai was wife of Motilal. The two injured witnesses namely- Umendram (PW-10) and Manisha (PW -11) are son and daughter of deceased- Motilal.
2.3 The deceased(s) and accused persons were residing in two separate houses in village Chamari. Their houses were situated in close proximity. The case of the prosecution is that members of both the families were engaged in brokerage and there was a dispute among them regarding payment of brokerage money. On 20.11.2008 at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased persons were present in their house. The allegations are that the appellants came there having sword, tabbal, lathi and attacked over the deceased persons who sustained multiple serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. When the children of Motilal tried to intervene, they were' also attacked by the appellants (A-1 to A-4). They had also sustained serious injuries. There are allegations of attempting their lives. After the death of the deceased persons, kerosene was poured on the dead body of deceased- Naindas and his dead body and the house of the deceased persons were put to fire. Their entire house was burnt.
The dead bodies of two deceased persons- Naindas and Motilal had sustained bum injuries.
2.4 Manisha (PW-11) lodged First Information Report (F.I.R. - Ex.P/51) and Merg intimations (Ex.-P/52, P/53 & P/54).
2.5 The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notices (Ex.-P/36, P/37 & P/38) to the Panchas and prepared inquest(s) (Ex.-P/33, P/34 & P/35) on the dead body of the deceased persons. A Panchnama (Ex.-P/30) of the place of occurrence (house of the deceased persons) was prepared. The house of the deceased was found in burnt condition. Many articles were still burning. The dead body of Motilal (deceased) was found in the inner verandah. The dead body of Naindas (deceased) was found in front of his house. It was in burnt condition. The cloths were burning, Huge amount of blood
