Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Navin Sinha and P. Sam Koshy, JJ.
Mainu Ram, S/o Kanglu Ram - Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, Kanker - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 965 of 2002
Decided On : 13-04-2016
Indian Penal Code - Section 302 – Offence of murder - Rigorous imprisonment – Appeal against conviction - According to prosecution case bicycle of deceased and Appellant No. 1 met with an accident - Two Appellants are then stated to have assaulted deceased with hands and fists - Next day 443 was lodged with police station - MLC of deceased Exhibit P-12 found swelling on left eye sub-conjunctiva hemorrhage hematoma below left lower eyelid swelling on ribs on both sides coupled with bleeding through rectum suspecting grievous internal injuries - Deceased was under treatment from day of occurrence and finally died – Held, Exhibit P-11 post mortem report read with Exhibit P-12 MLC both reveal only internal injuries due to assault by hands and fists - Deceased died on account of internal injuries caused - There has been no fracture of ribs but only perforation of peritoneum covering ribs - Death was occasioned due to septicemia shock because of perforation of peritoneum and jejunum - Except for swelling over ribs and injuries near eyes and one incision on left ankle there was no other external injury - In facts and circumstances of case it can therefore safely be inferred that Appellants never intended to cause death much less had knowledge that death was likely to ensure - They also cannot be said to have assaulted with intention to cause grievous internal injuries to deceased – But assault made by them certainly comes within Clause (8) of Section 320 IPC as grievous hurt which endangers life and not under Section 323 IPC as alleged - Keeping all aspects in mind that they were co-villagers origin of fight was trivial in nature due to a bicycle accident that there are no external injuries which resulted in death was result of internal injuries for which it cannot be said that Appellants intended to cause those very injuries conviction is considered appropriate under Section 325 IPC - In AIR deceased was dashed to ground and Appellant sat upon his stomach dealt him with severe blows with his fists with result that some of his ribs were fractured his spleen was ruptured he was rendered senseless and died after some hours - Similar injuries were found on forehead side of chest - Ribs were fractured - Doctor had opined that injuries were caused by some hard and blunt substance and one of injuries were caused by hard and strong compression of chest side - Death was caused by shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury - Charge had been framed under Section 302 IPC but sentence was passed under Section 325 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years - In facts of case and considering relationship of parties sentence was reduced from years to year in appeal - In peculiar facts and circumstances of case court deem it appropriate to convict Appellants under Section 325 IPC and sentence them to period already undergone - Appeal dismissed
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellant, Mainu Ram, was initially convicted of a serious offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine. The conviction was based on evidence indicating that the deceased died due to internal injuries caused by assault (!) (!) .
The incident originated from a trivial matter—a bicycle accident—and involved assault with hands and fists, without the use of any weapons. There was no evidence of pre-existing enmity between the parties, and the assault appeared to be impulsive rather than premeditated (!) (!) (!) .
The medical evidence revealed that the deceased suffered internal injuries, including perforation of the peritoneum and jejunum, leading to septicemic shock, which caused death. Importantly, there were no external injuries consistent with a lethal assault, and the injuries were inflicted with fists and possibly some blunt objects (!) .
The court noted that the appellants did not have the intent or knowledge that their actions would result in death or grievous internal injuries. The injuries caused do not meet the criteria for grievous hurt that endangers life, but do constitute grievous hurt under Section 320(8) of the IPC (!) .
Consequently, the court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC, which pertains to causing hurt that endangers life, and sentenced the appellants to the period already undergone in custody. The reasoning was based on the absence of intent to kill and the nature of the injuries (!) (!) .
The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the modified conviction and sentence (!) .
Additional considerations included the relationship between the parties, the trivial origin of the fight, and the absence of external injuries, which supported the conclusion that the assault was not committed with the intent to cause death or grievous harm (!) (!) (!) .
This summary captures the core legal reasoning and factual findings of the case, emphasizing the reduction of the charge from murder to grievous hurt due to lack of intent and the nature of the injuries sustained.
Navin Sinha, J.
1. The Appellants stand convicted to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs. 500/-, in the event of failure to pay which they were required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months ordered on 20.8.2002 by the Third Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Kanker in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2000.
2. According to the prosecution case, the bicycle of the deceased and Appellant No. 1 met with an accident on 12.8.1999. The two Appellants are then stated to have assaulted the deceased with hands and fists. The next day, Rojnamcha Sanha 443 was lodged with the police station. The MLC of the deceased, Exhibit P-12 found swelling on the left eye, sub-conjunctival hemorrhage, hematoma below left lower eyelid, swelling on the 9th, 10th and 11th ribs on both sides, coupled with bleeding through rectum suspecting grievous internal injuries. The deceased was under treatment from the day of occurrence and finally died on 30.8.1999.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the cause of occurrence was trivial in nature. There is no allegation of any previous enmity which may have been evidence of motive. The Appellants never intended to cause death nor can they be attributed knowledge that death was likely to ensue because of the assault by hands and fists. No weapons had been used to assault the deceased. The offence at best would come under Section 323 IPC. The Appellants have already undergone approximately 1 year and 3 months of custody which is more than the maximum that could have been imposed under Section 323 IPC.
4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that after being injured, the deceased came home and disclosed the names of the Appellants as the assailants to his wife PW-1, Danaybai. Similarly, the deceased had disclosed the names of the Appellants as the assailants to PW-2, Fagnuram, PW-4, Savji, PW-5, Shyamlal and PW-7, Chamra Ram, who was an eyewitness also. The names were also disclosed to PW-12, Lachchhuram Kotwar. If there existed no previous enmity, there is no reason why PW-1, Danaybai, the wife of the deceased would be lying and wrongly stating that the deceased had named the Appellants as the assailants. This disclosure is virtually like a dying declaration and there is no reason to doubt it.
5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and perused the evidence on record.
6. The evidence leaves no doubt that the Appellants were the assailants. It is also not in controversy that no weapon of assault had been used and that the deceased was assaulted with hands and fists only. Likewise, the genesis of the occurrence was also very trivial over a bicycle accident. The Appellants and the deceased were co-villagers. There is no evidence of any pre-existing enmity. The Appellants appear to have acted more in a fit of anger rather than with any intention or knowledge to kill the deceased. Perhaps they were only interested in venting their ire against the deceased for riding his bicycle negligently leading to all of them falling down.
7. Exhibit P-11, the post mortem report read with Exhibit P-12, the MLC, both reveal only internal injuries due to the assault by hands and fists. The deceased died on account of the internal injuries caused. There has been no fracture of the ribs but only perforation of the peritoneum covering the ribs. Death was occasioned due to septicemic shock because of the perforation of the peritoneum and jejunum. Except for the swelling over the ribs and injuries near the eyes and one incision on the left ankle, there was no other external injury. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it can therefore safely be inferred that the Appellants never intended to cause death much less had knowledge that death was likely to ensue. They also cannot be said to have assaulted with intention to cause grievous internal injuries to the deceased. But, the assault made by them certainly comes within Clause (8) of Section 320 IPC as grievous hurt
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
