Chattisgarh High Court
Duhan Ram Manjhi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 March, 2022
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal, Rajani Dubey
Cr.A.No.1261/2014
Page 1 of 6
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1261 of 2014
{Arising out of judgment dated 11-11-2014 in Sessions Trial No.553/2011 of
the Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur)}
Duhan Ram Manjhi, S/o Thurru Ram Manjhi, aged about 63 years,
Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Harramar, at present R/o Kotchhal, Police
Station Sitapur, Civil and Revenue District Surguja (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Incharge, Arakshi Kendra Sitapur, District
Surguja (C.G.)
---- Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant: Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent/State: Mr. Devesh Chand Verma, Government Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Smt. Rajani Dubey, JJ.
Judgment On Board (08/03/2022) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Sessions Trial No.553/2011, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of ₹ 200/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 17-5-2011 at about 8 p.m., at Village Kotchhal, the appellant caused the murder of Balmukund by axe by which he suffered injuries and consequently died. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant herein and one Cr.A.No.1261/2014 Page 2 of 6 Amarsai (PW-7), both used to work with deceased Balmukund Guruji as labourers, but the deceased used to taunt the appellant herein that he does not perform work property and on the fateful day at about 8 p.m. when one Tuleshwar, who died subsequently and could not be examined, and one Amarsai were playing cards, the appellant herein caused single blow on the head of deceased Balmukund Guruji by which he suffered injuries and died. On hearing the noise, wife of Tuleshwar - Shakuntala (PW-5), came on the spot and then wife of the deceased - Rupanti (PW-2) and other persons came on the spot and the matter was reported by Rupanti (PW-2) whereby offence under Section 307 of the IPC was registered against the appellant. The deceased died on the way while taking to the hospital and morgue report was registered vide Ex.P-6 on 18-5-2011. Post- mortem was conducted by Dr. Vidya Bhushan Toppo (PW-1) and blood stained articles and other articles were seized vide Ex.P-1. Memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-3 and axe was recovered vide Ex.P-4. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination which was given vide Ex.P-13 in which except on the soil and axe, human blood was found on all other articles. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC..
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the accused / appellant abjured guilt and entered into trial. The trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC to bring home the offence. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents Exhibits P-1 to P-13.
4. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.A.No.1261/2014 Page 3 of 6 CrPC in which he abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and no defence witness was examined by him and he did not bring any document on record. After completion of trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred.
5. Mr. C.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for appellant, would make solitary submission that it is a case where conviction deserves to be altered to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, as the dispute is with regard to wage amount and on that count, dispute between the parties arose on 17-5-2011 which is apparent from the statement of Rupanti (PW-2), who has clearly stated that on that day, deceased Balmukund, Amarsai (PW-7) & Tuleshwar, all were playing cards and they have taken dinner together also and thereafter, dispute with regard to wage amount took place among them and as such, there was no intention of the accused / appellant to cause death of the deceased. Not only this, the appellant has suffered grievous injury, he was even hospitalized which is apparent from the statement of Lokeshwar Prasad (PW-8) - investigating officer, who in paragraph 15 of his evidence has clearly admitted that the family members of Balmukund - deceased have assaulted the appellant on account of which the appellant was admitted in Community Health Centre, Sitapur on 23-5-2011 and from there he was referred to District Hospital, Ambikapur and he was thereafter, discharged on 10-6-2011, and the injury sustained by the appellant was not explained by the prosecution. Even otherwise, Tuleshwar, the other person who was present on the spot, was also assaulted on account of which he died. As such, it is a case where Cr.A.No.1261/2014 Page 4 of 6 conviction of the appellant should be altered to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and since the appellant is in jail from 10-6-2011, minimum sentence of 10 years has already been undergone by the appellant, therefore, altering his conviction and sentence, he be released by granting the appeal.
6. Mr. Devesh Chand Verma, learned State counsel, would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence, conviction is well merited and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.
8. So far as homicidal nature of death of the deceased is concerned, it has clearly been stated by Dr. Vidya Bhushan Toppo (PW-1) that he has noticed only one injury on left part of head of the deceased i.e. lacerated wound in the size of 5" x 2.5" x 1.5" caused by hard & blunt object and cause of death is head injury and hemorrhagic shock, and death was homicidal in nature. The learned Sessions Judge also recorded finding that death was homicidal in nature. The said finding appears to be based on record and is hereby affirmed.
9. Now, the only submission that has been made on behalf of the appellant is that conviction of the appellant should be converted into Section 304 Part-II of the IPC as the appellant has no intention to cause the death of the deceased
10. It is appropriate to notice here Section 304 Part-II of the IPC which states as under: -
"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.--Whoever commits culpable homicide not Cr.A.No.1261/2014 Page 5 of 6 amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
11. The Supreme Court in the matter of State through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda1 held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both.
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that admittedly, the appellant herein and one Amarsai (PW-7) both were working with deceased Balmukund Guruji and some dispute arose between the deceased and the appellant qua wage amount and on the fateful day, all assembled together, they took dinner together and were playing cards also, but thereafter, some dispute arose on account of wage amount payable to the appellant herein and in that course of dispute, the appellant herein has assaulted the deceased by hard & blunt object by which the deceased suffered injury and while taking to hospital, he succumbed to the injury sustained by him and died. As such, there was relationship of employer and employee existing between the deceased and the appellant herein and there is dispute only with regard to wage amount on that fateful day and otherwise, they have cordial relationship. As per paragraph 4 of the evidence of 1 (2012) 8 SCC 450 Cr.A.No.1261/2014 Page 6 of 6 Rupanti (PW-2), wife of the deceased, on that day, the appellant herein, the deceased and Amarsai (PW-7) were in the house of the deceased, they took dinner together and they played cards also, but thereafter, dispute arose with regard to wage amount and in that course of dispute, the appellant assaulted the deceased only one blow by hard & blunt object by which only one injury was sustained by the deceased that too on vital part of the body as noticed by Dr. Vidya Bhushan Toppo (PW-1).
13. Looking to the nature and manner in which the incident has taken place, it can safely be held that the appellant had no intention to cause death, but certainly he had knowledge that his act may result in death. In that view of the matter, we hereby alter conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC into Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and we award sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant. The appellant is in jail since 10-6-2011 and thereby he had already suffered more than 10 years of jail sentence. The appellant be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
14. Consequently, the criminal appeal is partly allowed by modifying conviction and sentence in the aforesaid manner.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
Soma