Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Yatindra Singh, C.J. and Pritinker Diwaker, J.
Amol Singh - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 1999
Decided On: 10.07.2014
Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 323 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 – Offence of murder - Judgment of conviction - Life imprisonment - So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined one Rambhajan as DW-1 - Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting four accused persons convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment - During pendency of this appeal, accused/appellant No. 3 Gurudin has expired and therefore, the present appeal so far as it relates to appellant No. 4 abates and is dismissed as such. It has been informed by the State counsel that appellant No. 4 Budhar Singh has been set free on 17.7.2001 after pardon being granted by the Governor - Learned counsel for the appellants submits - That the dispute arose when the accused/appellants were harvesting their field and the deceased and his family members entered their field and objected to their harvesting and as such, it is the deceased party who were aggressor – Held, Both the sides were claiming the entire land to be their ancestral property. However, there is no clinching evidence on record to show as to who was in possession of the land where the incident had taken place on the date of incident. The evidence reflects that on the date of incident while the deceased along with his family members was harvesting paddy crop in the field, allegedly owned by him, the accused/appellants reached there, objected to their harvesting and therefore, some hot talk took place between them which ultimately culminated into fight between them and ended in death of Jagatram and minor injuries to both PW-1 Dhirendra, PW-2 Chandanbai as well as to some of the accused persons. As per medical evidence the injury sustained by the deceased on his head proved to be fatal and resulted in his death. According to the eye-witnesses, the said injury was caused by accused/appellant No. 4 Budhar Singh. However, from close scrutiny of the entire evidence it appears that though the said injury was caused by appellant No. 4, but there was no premeditation on his part to cause death of the deceased, the incident occurred in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. He did not act in a cruel or unusual manner, he made a solitary attack on the head of the deceased which unfortunately resulted in his death. Further, looking to the nature of weapon by which assault was made, the force with which the assault was made and the part of the body where assault was made, it can safely be held that appellant No. 4 Budhar Singh had the intention to cause such bodily injury to the deceased as is likely to result in his death. This being the position, the act of appellant No. 4 is held to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and therefore, he is liable to be punished under Section 304Part-I of IPC - Appeal allowed
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.1.1999 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in S.T. No. 489/96 convicting the accused/appellants under Sections 302, 323 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and R1 for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused/appellant No. 1 Amol Singh is son of late Bhelan Singh and name of sister of Bhelan Singh is Chandanbai (PW-2). It is alleged that originally the land in question was in the name of Dhokhiyabai, mother of Bhenal Singh and Chandanbai, and after her death, about 15 acres land came in possession of Chandanbai (PW-2) and rest 20 acres land came in possession of Bhelan Singh. After the death of Bhenal Singh, it is accused/appellant No. 1 Amol Singh who was claiming his possession over the said land. It is alleged that on 9.11.1996 at about 8 a.m. when deceased Jagatram, his son Dhirendra (PW-1) and wife Chandanbai (PW-2) were harvesting the paddy crop in their field, accused/appellant Nos. 1 & 2 Amol Singh and Devsharan accompanied by acquitted accused Baiju Singh came to the field and objected to harvesting of crop by the deceased party and thereafter, they (accused persons) left the place. At about 12 in the noon when the appellants were harvesting paddy crop in a field, which is about 50 yards away from the field where the deceased was harvesting, it is alleged that the deceased accompanied by Dhirendra (PW-1), Chandanbai (PW-2), Santosh (PW-2) and others went there and raised an objection. On this, appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 assaulted Chandanbai with clubs causing simple injuries to her, when deceased Jagatram came to her rescue appellant Nos. 1, 2 & 3 also assaulted him with club and thereby caused simple injuries to him as a result of which Jagatram fell down. At this juncture, Dhirendra (PW-1) grappled with appellant No. 4 Budhar Singh, who was armed with axe. He succeeded in snatching axe from him. However, during struggle appellant No. 4 repossessed axe from Dhirendra. In the meantime, Jagatram got up from the field and started running. It is alleged that at that time, appellant No. 4 having snatched axe from Dhirendra gave two axe blows to Jagatram which struck on his head and chest resulting in his death subsequently. In the said incident, PW-1 Dhirendra and PW-2 Chandanbai also suffered injuries. Further undisputed fact is that appellant No. 3 Guruddin, appellant No. 4 Budhar Singh and acquitted accused Rajju Singh also suffered injuries in the same incident. FIR (Ex. P/1) was lodged by Dhirendra (PW-1) on 9.11.1996 at 4.40 p.m. and based on this, offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 149 of IPC were registered against 8 accused persons including the present appellants. Postmortem on the body of deceased Jagatram was conducted on 10.11.1996 vide Ex. P/6 by Dr. Roopam Mitra (PW-6), who noticed mainly one fatal injury on the head of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is intra-cranial haemorrhage (brain haemorrhage) because of trauma over skull. PW-1 Dhirendra and PW-2 Chandanbai were also medically examined vide Exs. P/8 & P/7 by Dr. Roopam Mitra (PW-6) and according to him, they sustained simple injuries. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 of IPC and accordingly, charges under Sections 147, 302/149 and 323/149 were framed against them.
2. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined one Rambhajan as DW-1.
3. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment while a
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
