Chattisgarh High Court
Banshi Dewar vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 4 ... on 16 January, 2018
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ram Prasanna Sharma
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 84 of 2015
Banshi Dewar S/o Shri Nahar Dewar Aged About 50 Years
R/o Ward No. 5, Police Station And Tah. Kawardha, District
Kabirdham Chhattisgarh Civil And Revenue Distt. Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. StateOf Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station
Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
2. Bhairam S/o Rakesh @ Raket Dewar Aged About 22 Years.
3. Gabbar S/o Ramji Dewar Aged About 20 Years.
4. Manish S/o Rakesh @ Raket Dewar Aged About 19 Years.
5. Shashi S/o Dauram Dewar Aged About 35 Years.
6. Gajju S/o Doctor Dewar Aged About 23 Years.
7. Rajesh @ Telgu S/o Ankat Dewar Aged About 32 Years
Nos. 2 to 7 are Residents of Ward No. 04, Dewarpara,
Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham
Chhattisgarh.
8. Chotu S/o Bisoha Dewar Aged About 34 Years R/o Village
Khadar Devri, Bhatapara, Near The Pond, Police Station
Anda, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
9. Baldu @ Kumar S/o Chherka Dewar Aged About 50 Years.
10. Rakesh @ Raket S/o Shiv Singh @ Ide Dewar Aged About
42 Years.
11. Jalesh @ Mussu S/o Shiv Singh @ Ide Dewar Aged About
32 Years.
2
12. Rinku @ Rinka S/o Bonu Dewar Aged About 25 Years.
13. Bhola S/o Sushil Dewar Aged About 25 Years.
14. Lalita Bai W/o Rakesh @ Raket Dewar Aged About 36 Years.
15. Tofa @ Tohfa Dewar S/o Rakesh @ Raket Dewar Aged About 21
Years.
16. Fukiya @ Fugiya @ Neelu S/o Baldu @ Kumar Aged About 19
Years.
17. Malesh S/o Ide @ Shiv Singh Dewar Aged About 40 Years.
18. Rohit @ Mukri S/o Bonu Dewar @ Markam Aged About21Years .
19. Ram Dewar S/o Shushil Dewar Aged About 30 Years.
20. Gautam S/o Shankar @ Netam Aged About 23 Years.
21. Lukesh @ Lokesh S/o Baldu Dewar Aged About 21 years.
22. Ashwan S/o Ide @ Shiv Singh Dewar Aged About 21 Years.
23. Karan @ Popo S/o Basant Dewar Aged About 21 Years
No. 9 to 23 are Residents of Ward No. 4, Dewarpara, Kawardha, Police
Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
24. Bablu S/o Asharam Netam Aged About 22 Years R/o Village
Ghiri, Police Station Somni, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
25.Raka S/o Ramsingh Dewar Aged About 20 Years R/o Machhli
Market, Behind Sharab Bhatti, Sector-11, Khursipaar, Bhilai,
District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Appellant Shri Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate.
For State Shri Arvind Dubey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board 3 16/01/2018
1. The present appeal would challenge the said part of the judgment whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons for the offence under Section 307/149 IPC.
2. In a dispute concerning ownership of Pig, the parties entered into a fight in which the members of the appellant's party namely Dharmendra Thakur, Tara Bai, Sridevi, Pooja, Banshi, Navagahin, Urmila and Kurri sustained injuries. Out of these injured persons Banshi and Navagahin also sustained injuries over their forehead. However, these injuries were not accompanied with any fracture.
3. PW-19 Dr. P.C. Prabhakar has neither given any expert opinion nor deposed in the Court that the injuries over the head would have endangered the life of the above two injured persons.
4. In the above state of evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted the accused persons only for the offences under Sections 148, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC. For their conviction under Sections 148, 325/ 149, the accused persons have been directed to undergo R.I. for one year.
5. Having heard Shri Dinesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Arvind Dubey, learned State counsel and on perusal of the record, we have not found that the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court convicting the accused persons under Sections 323 and 325 IPC only and not under Section 307/149 IPC, suffers from any such perversity which calls for interference by this Court.
6. To attract offfence under Section 307 IPC, the nature of weapon is not the only determining factor. It depends on the genesis of the offence, the nature of injuries, the part of the 4 body chosen to inflict injuries, the grievousness of the injuries etc. In a case like the present when two groups have fought against each other, it is difficult to cull out intention to commit murder which would include the attempt to commit murder.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
Judge Judge
Prashant Kumar Mishra Ram Prasanna Sharma
Akhilesh