Back
2016 Supreme(Chh) 70
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Pritinker Diwaker and Inder Singh Uboweja, JJ.
Ram Prasad, Son of Sukh Ram Rathiya – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh - Respondent
CRA No. 463 of 2011
Decided On : 16-03-2016
For the Appellant : Shri Yogeshwar Sharma.
For the Respondent: Shri Arvind Dubey.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 – Offence of murder - Judgment of conviction – Rigorous imprisonment - Prosecution story in brief is that a report was lodged alleging in it that on fateful date he along with his younger brother and other villagers had gone to house of one to attend tenth day ritual - It is further alleged on account of old enmity accused/appellant had caused knife injuries on various parts of his body - PW-2 had intervened in matter - Incident was witnessed by him and others - It is further mentioned in report that after incident injured was taken to hospital - This report was entered in vide Ex.P-17C - MLC of said was conducted vide Ex.P-13 & Ex.P-14 and he noticed - According to doctor all injuries were caused by hard and sharp object and injuries on chest & abdomen were grievous in nature - FIR was registered against accused/appellant under Section 324 of IPC - Looking to critical condition of said he was referred to hospital where he died while undergoing treatment - Intimation of death was given vide Ex.P-9 from hospital and based on which un-numbered & numbered merge were recorded vide Ex.P-10 & P-23 – Held, Moreover incident was taken place and deceased breathed his last and this long survival for days goes to suggest that it is effect of proper and timely treatment only that deceased pulled-on for days otherwise injuries sustained by him were so grievous that there was no chance for his survival any longer and he would have met instantaneous death - Thus court have no hesitation in saying that defense has not been able to bring on record that injuries caused to deceased did not result in his death during initial fatal period and that his death happened on account of setting in of some later complications or he died for want of proper treatment in hospital - Further court find no substance in argument of counsel for accused/appellant that in facts & circumstances of case accused/appellant can at best be held liable guilty under Section 304 Part-I or II of IPC - Considering manner in which appellant had assaulted deceased nature and extent of injuries hole in intestines there can be no doubt that accused/appellant had not only intention to kill deceased but also had knowledge injuries being inflicted by him on deceased were sure to result in his death - Mere fact that deceased died only after days of sustaining knife injuries cannot evacuate act out of contours of 2ndly clause of Section 300 of IPC particularly when ultimate cause of death was shock due to intestinal perforation resulted from knife injury inflicted by appellant and nothing else - Appeal dismissed
P. Diwaker, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.4.2011 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in S.T. No. 53/2010 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for Life.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 27.2.2010 a report was lodged by Abhiram (PW-7) alleging in it that on the fateful date he along with his younger brother Bharatram (since deceased), Balakram (PW-2) and other villagers had gone to the house of one Panchram Rathiya to attend the tenth day ritual. It is further alleged that at about 4.00 p.m. on account of old enmity the accused/appellant had caused knife injuries to Bharat Ram Rathiya on various parts of his body. Balakram (PW-2) had intervened in the matter. Incident was witnessed by him, Ghasiya Rathi (PW-3), Belmati Bai (PW-6) and others. It is further mentioned in the report that after the incident, injured Bharat Ram Rathiya was taken to the hospital. This report was entered in the roznamcha sanha vide Ex.P-17C. MLC of said Bharat Ram Rathiya was conducted by Dr. Yogeshwar Singh (PW-11) on 27.2.2010 vide Ex.P-13 & Ex.P-14 and he noticed following injuries:-
Incised wound of 2 x 1 x 4 cm in size over chest anterior lower part at left side.
Incised wound of 1 cm size over anterior side of left chest.
Incised wound of 2 x 1 x 1 cm over anterior part of chest, sternum. Clotted blood was present.
Incised wound of 3 x 1 x 4 cm over left arm.
Incised wound of 4 x 2 x 4 cm over left shoulder at upper part.
Incised wound of 4 x 2 x 4 cm over left lower side of stomach.
According to the doctor, all the injuries were caused by hard and sharp object and injuries on chest & abdomen were grievous in nature. On 28.2.2010 FIR (Ex.P-18) was registered against the accused/appellant under Section 324 of IPC. Looking to critical condition of said Bharat Ram Rathia, he was referred to the hospital at Raigarh where he died on 23.3.2010 while undergoing treatment. Intimation of death of Bharat Ram Rathia was given vide Ex.P-9 from the hospital on 23.3.2010 and based on which un-numbered & numbered merg were recorded vide Ex.P-10 & P-23. Inquest on the body was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. B.R. Patel (PW-10) vide Ex.P-12 and he noticed following injuries:-
Healed wound at the lower part of chest.
Healed wound at the middle of left arm.
Healed wound on the right shoulder.
Healed wound on the right buttock.
Surgical incisor with stitching wound over middle of abdomen.
One plastic tube drain was attached.
As per post-mortem report (Ex.P-12), the cause of death was shock due to intestinal perforation and the death was homicidal in nature.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Sections 324 & 302 of the IPC, however, the trial Court has framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused/appellant.
4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.
5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment, convicted & sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.
6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submits that though Balakram (PW-2) & Abhiram (PW-7) have been examined by the prosecution as eyewitnesses to the incident but their evidence do not inspire confidence. He further submits even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, at best the accused/appellant can be held guilty under Section 304 Part-I or II of the IPC and not under Section 302 of the IPC because the incident had
