IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, JJ.
Kamleshwar Painkra S/o Shri Kripashankar Painkra - Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 827, 1133 of 2016
Decided on : 02-11-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2), 161 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 300, 304 part I, II, 353, 332, 307 and 302 - Murder Offence - Unlawful Assembly - Obstructing from Performing Governmental Work – Appeal against Conviction - Eight appellants constituted an unlawful assembly in forest with intention of obstructing Forester from performing governmental work and caused death of Motilal Kushwaha and injured (P.W.-7), (P.W.-10) and (P.W.-11)- appellants/accused persons did not have any intention to cause the death of the deceased and they assaulted him in sudden fight and in heat of passion. [para 66]
Finding of the Court :
Principle of law laid down in matter of Arjun (supra), it is quite vivid that as is evident from entire evidence available on record, appellants/accused persons did not have any intention to cause death of deceased and they assaulted him in sudden fight and in heat of passion, however, looking to injury inflicted by them on head of deceased, which is a vital part of body, they must have had knowledge that their act would likely cause death of deceased - As such, conviction of both appellants/accused persons namely (A-l) and (A-2) for offence punishable under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentence awarded accordingly is hereby set aside and they are rather convicted for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC with aid of Section 34 of IPC and since they are in jail i.e. more than 7 years, they are sentenced to period already undergone by them.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Since both of these criminal appeals have arisen out of impugned judgment dated 27/05/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Pratappur, Distt. Surajpur in Sessions Trial No. 27/2015, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The six appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 827/2016 namely Kamleshwar Painkra (A-1), Kripashankar Painkra (A-2), Jagendra Kumar (A-3), Shivlal Gond (A-4), Baldev (A-7) and Dhanushdhari (A-8) as well as the two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1133/2016 namely Shyam Painkra (A35) and Ramkumar Painkra (A-6); all have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) of CrPC calling in question the validity, legality and correctness of the judgment impugned whereby each one of them have been convicted and sentenced as under :-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| U/s 148 of IPC | 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. |
| U/s 353 of IPC | 6 months R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. |
| U/s 302/149 of IPC | Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 6 months. |
Prosecution case :-
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11/06/2015 in between 11PM-12AM, the eight appellants herein along with two other co-accused persons namely Smt. Shanti and Smt. Abha Painkra constituted an unlawful assembly in the forest range of Chitkabahra at Village Gotgaon with the intention of obstructing Forester Motilal Kushwaha (deceased), Forester Hemlal Sahu (P.W.-7), Beat Guard Sohan (P.W.-10) and Forest Guard Jaikaran (P.W.-11) from performing governmental work and assaulted them with deadly and dangerous weapons and in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of Motilal Kushwaha and injured Hemlal Sahu (P.W.-7), Sohan (P.W.-10) and Jaikaran (P.W.-11) and thereby, committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Further case of the prosecution is that on 11/06/2015 at about 10 PM, deceased Motilal Kushwaha made a call to Hemlal Sahu (P.W.-7) and informed him that he had received the information that wood was being stolen at forest range Chitkabahra and directed him to go to the place of the incident along with barrier guard Jaikaran (P.W.-11). As directed, when Hemlal Sahu (P.W.-7) and barrier guard Jaikaran (P.W.-11) went to the Chitkabahra forest range, they heard the sound of wood being unloaded from the tractor and they immediately informed about this to Circle Incharge deceased Motilal Kushwaha. After being informed, deceased Motilal Kushwaha reached the spot along with beat guard Sohan (P.W.-10) and when all of them went near the courtyard of Kamleshwar Painkra (A-1), they found that Kamleshwar Painkra (A-1), Kripashankar Painkra (A-2) and Jagendra (A-3) were unloading wood from a tractor bearing registration No. CG 15-AI/4322. Upon this, deceased Motilal Kushwaha asked them to again reload the tractor with illegal wood and send it to the Range Office but Kamleshwar Painkra (A-1) replied that he also worked in Forest Department and he would see who takes the wood to Range Office. Thereafter, deceased Motilal Kushwaha informed about the incident to the Ranger and after telling them that action will be taken against them in the morning, he started going back but at that time, Kamleshwar Painkra (A-2) and Jagendra (A-3) came back with 8-10 people along with them and while abusing and obstructing deceased Motilal Kushwaha from performing their governmental duties, with the intention of causing death, assaulted him with clubs and murdered him. The accused persons also assaulted Sohan (P.W.-10) and Jaikaran (P.W.-11) with clubs and injured them.
5. The said incident was reported at Pratappur Police Station wherein merg was registered at the instance
Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130]
Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh
Allauddin Mian vs. State of Bihar
Bhudeo Mandal vs. State of Bihar
Dana Yadav alias Dahu and others v. State of Bihar
Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana
Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana
Jadunath Singh and another v. The State of U.P.
Joseph v. State, represented by Inspector of Police
Kanta Prasad v. Delhi Administration
Kuldip Yadav and others v. State of Bihar
Rajendra Shantaram Todankar vs. State of Maharashtra
State of Assam vs. Darga Dewani
Sikhar Behera and other vs. State of Orissa
Somasundaram @ Somu vs. State represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Section 141 of IPC states that an “unlawful assembly” is an assembly of five or more persons, if their common object is to commit mischief, criminal trespass or any other offence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 149 IPC to determine the common object of the unlawful assembly and the vicarious liability of the accused, as well as t....
The judgment established that even if Section 149 IPC is not attracted, the appellants could still be convicted with the aid of Section 34 IPC if the common intention to commit the crime and the part....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the constitution of an unlawful assembly and the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 149 of IPC.
Point of law: It is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by th....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.