Chattisgarh High Court
Dashrath Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2 Mcrc/9552/2018 ... on 6 December, 2018
Author: Ram Prasanna Sharma
Bench: Ram Prasanna Sharma
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 939 of 2011
• Dashrath Sahu s/o. Punaram Sahu aged about 24
years, r/o. village Parpodi, Police Chowki Devkar,
Police Station Saja, District durg (CG).
---- Appellant.
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Chowki
Devkar, Police Station Saja, District Durg (CG).
---- Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu,
Advocate
For respondent/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Judgment on Board 06-12-2018
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22-11-2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetaqra, District Durg (CG) in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2011 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 304 Par 1 of IPC (culpable homicide, not amounting to murder) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. 2
2. In the resent case name of the deceased is Gomati Bai who was step-mother of the appellant. As per version of the prosecution on 2-3-2011 at about 5.00 pm deceased Smt. Gomati Bai and her step-son (appellant) were present in the barn of one Punaram Sahu situated at village Parpodi. It is alleged that wife of the appellant did not provide him food in time that is why there was quarrel between the appellant and his wife in which deceased Gomati Bai intervened and in that process appellant assaulted the deceased on head by Kutela (thick club) which resulted into her death. The matter was reported and investigated. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under:
i) It is not clear from the evidence as to how the dispute took place and in what circumstances the appellant had assaulted the deceased. The appellant has no reason for assaulting her with intention or knowledge for causing her death.
ii Witnesses are hearsay in nature and their version is not sufficient to bring home the guilt.
Iii) Only one injury is caused as per version of the prosecution from which the intention or object cannot be gathered.
iv) The trial Court did not give weightage to material contradictions and omissions and the evidence is not evaluated in its true 3 perspective, therefore, finding of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the finding of the trial Court is based on proper marshalling of the evidence and the same is not liable to be interfered while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the court below in which impugned judgment is passed.
6. Dr. A.K. Shankar Verma (PW/11) conducted autopsy of the deceased. As per version of his witness he noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased Gomati Bai.
i) Lacerated wound in the size of 4cm x 0.5cm was present on anterior right side of parietal region. Reddish black clotted blood present on this site.
ii) Haematoma present on between the scalp and skull at the left side of right side of parietal region in the size of haematoma 11x 12 cm.
iii) Fracture of parietal bone at the left side, length of fracture was 6 cm and radiating to anti-lateral.
4Meningers found at the parietal region (size 7 x 3 cm).
7. As per version of this expert, death is caused due to cardio respiratory arrest due to brain haemorrhage as a result of head injury. From this evidence it is established that cause of death is head injury. PW/1 Punaram Sahu, PW/7 Sukhram Sahu, PW/8 Yadram Sahu and PW/9 Smt. Bindu Sahu and PW/11 Shankar Verma have deposed before the trial Court that the appellant confessed before them that he assaulted the deceased by a thick club on her head. All these witnesses have been subjected to searching cross examination, but nothing could be elicited in favour of defence. There is no reason for these witnesses to rope the appellant in a false charge on account of any grudge or otherwise.
8. Looking to the ample evidence which is supported by autopsy report and supported by FIR which is lodged on next day of the incident naming the appellant as culprit and further act of the appellant is also mentioned in the FIR, the trial Court opined that it appears that the appellant assaulted on the head of the deceased upon sudden quarrel without taking undue advantage or any cruel manner, therefore, case of the appellant falls in exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC which is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 5
9. After assessing the evidence, this court has no reason to record contrary finding. It is not a case where the trial Court has recorded finding on the basis of any irrelevant or extraneous manner. Finding of the trial Court is based on relevant material placed on record and same is not liable to be interfered with. Conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC is hereby affirmed.
10. Heard on the point of sentence.
The trial Court awarded RI for ten years for offence under Section 304 Part 1 of IPC which cannot be termed as harsh or unreasonable or disproportionate. Sentence part is also not liable to be interfered with.
11. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. As per report of the jail authorities, the appellant has suffered full jail term and after getting benefit of remission he has been released from jail, therefore, no further order for his arrest etc., is required.
Sd/-
(Ram Prasanna Sharma) Judge Raju