The judgment established the importance of medical evidence and legal precedents in determining the nature of injuries and the applicability of relevant sections of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellants-accused persons herein is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2016 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 33/2015 by which appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- each; in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 21.01.2009 at about 5:30 pm at village Kolaibahal Statiopara, Police Station Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, appellants herein namely Laxmichand Chouhan (A-1), Mali Chouhan (A-2) & Naka @ Savitri (A-3) in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Ghurauram by wooden stick and hand & fist, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. It is further case of the prosecution is that A-1 & A-2 are the son and daughter, respectively, of A-3 and Ghurauram (now deceased) was the son-in-law A-3. Further case of the prosecution is that on the date of offence Ghurauram (deceased) under the influence of liquor started quarreling with his wife A-2 herein and also with A-1 & A-3, on account of which, appellants herein (A-1, A-2 & A-3) assaulted Ghurauram (deceased) by wooden stick and hand & fist by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. Merg intimation and FIR were registered vide Exs. P/12 & P/20. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/18) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/21), proved by Dr. Jayant Shriwastava (PW-12), cause of death was shock on account of excessive hemorrhage due to internal injury. Pursuant to memorandum statements of the appellants herein (A-1, A-2 & A-3) vide Exs. P/1, P/3 & P/5, wooden sticks have been seized vide Exs. P/2, P/4 & P/6. In FSL report (Ex.P/26), alcohol has been found in the viscera of the deceased.

3. After due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants / accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence.

4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. Defence, has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied circumstances appearing against them in prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants/accused persons for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

6. Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the appellants have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit Dr. Jayant Shriwastava (PW-12), who conducted the postmortem, in his statement before the Court, has clearly stated that injury caused on the head of the deceased was not sufficient to cause death and death has only occurred on account of excessive bleeding. Therefore, at best, the conviction of the appellants may be altered to Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 of IPC and the appellants may be sentenced for the period already undergone, as they are in jail since 06.02.2015 and the appeal be allowed in part.

7. Per contra, Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel, would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial