1 CRA No. 735/2016 2025:CGHC:38768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 735 of 2016 1 - Dhaniram Sahu S/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Bodridadar, Police Station - Bagbahra, Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Present Address Dabrapara, Veer Shivaji Nagar, Mahoba Bazar, Police Station Aamanaka, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Aamanaka, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Ali Afzal Mirza, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Isha Jajodia, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.11 17:29:11 +0530 2 CRA No. 735/2016 05.08.2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2016 passed by Learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 198/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 304 part- II of the Indian Penal Code Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine additional S.I. for 01 month 2. In the instant crime, there are two accused persons. Out of them Dhaneshwar Lal Sahu has been acquitted by the Trial Court by giving him benefit of doubt due to lack of sufficient evidence. Thus, this appeal by the appellant Dhaniram Sahu. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the complainant Arun Sahni (PW- 1), who is the brother of the deceased namely Sanjeet, lodged the oral report in the Amanaka police station on 16/06/2014 to the effect that he lives in Dabrapara, Veer Shivaji Nagar and on 16/06/2014 at 4:00 p.m. in Dabrapara, he along with other boys of the locality Dhaniram (appellant/ accused), 3 CRA No. 735/2016 Dhaneshwar (acquitted accused), Sanjeet (deceased), Pawan, Sukes, Kalia, Auto Kesariya were playing cards at the new market. While playing cards, Dhaneshwar and Sanjeet started fighting saying it’s mine. Sanjeet came to him and took all the money, meanwhile the accused Dhaneshwar caught Sanjeet abused him in the name of her mother and his brother Dhaniram picked up a wooden stick lying nearby and hit Sanjeet on the head from behind, due to which, Sanjeet fell down on the spot. Saliva started oozing out from his mouth, thereafter he called his brother Pardeshi and said that someone is serious, bring an auto rickshaw, so he brought an auto rickshaw, then he, Pardeshi, Gaurishankar, Vikram put Sanjeet in an auto rickshaw and took him to Dr. Soni Mukesh's hospital nearby, when he refused, they took him to Ramakrishna Care Hospital and got him admitted. On the basis of the above information given by the complainant, P.S. Amanaka registered a crime against the accused under sections 294, 307 of the IPC and took it into investigation. During the course of treatment the deceased died on 17.06.2014 and as such in place of the offence under Section 307, the offence under Section 302, 34 has also been added. 4 CRA No. 735/2016 4. During investigation, spot map was prepared statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court. The prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after completing the trial not found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code and acquitted him. However, convicted and sentenced him for offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this Judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that finding given by the learned trial Court against the appellant is perverse and contrary to evidence on record. He submits that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant only on the basis of testimony of interested witnesses, however the independent prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant for the alleged offence, particularly when the deposition of the prosecution witnesses are not corroborated 5 CRA No. 735/2016 with each other and there are major contradiction and omission in the statements of witnesses, which cannot be relied upon. Hence the impugned conviction and sentence are liable to be set-aside. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that there are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellant was guilty of the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The question for consideration is whether the accused assaulted the deceased and inflicted injuries on him due to which he died? 10. PW-1 brother of the deceased stated in his examination-in- chief that on the date of the incident Kalia Sahni (PW-2) from his neighbourhood came and told him that his brother is lying 6 CRA No. 735/2016 unconscious near Naya Market. Thereafter he went to the place of incident and saw his brother lying unconscious. He also deposed that when he reached the spot he saw Sukesh Sahni, Pawan Sahni and Dhaniram Sahu and all were in intoxixation condition. He further deposed that after admitting his brother to the hospital he had lodged the FIR. 11. PW-2 Kaliya Sahni, who is an eyewitness,.stated in his examination-in-chief that after returning from his duty he went to buy vegetables at that time near Naya Bazaar. He saw Dhaniram, Sanjeet, Sukesh and one another boy sitting. He further deposed that he saw that Dhaniram, who was inebriated, got up and picked up the wooden plank lying there and threw it on the ground and started leaving from there. After that the boys were standing there and taking among themselves when Dhaniram came back and picked up the same plank and hit Sanjit on his head due to which Sanjit fell down on the spot and got injury on the head. Thereafter, he went and informed about the incident to brother of the injured i.e. PW-1 Arun Sahni. 12. PW-6 Sukesh Sahni stated in his examination-in-chief that on the date of the incident he along with some other boys were 7 CRA No. 735/2016 playing cards near the mall under construction. He further stated that suddenly Dhaniram got up and went to the back side and hit Sanjeet’s head from behind with the wooden plank due to which Sanjeet fell down on the spot. 13. PW-9 Dr. Nitin Barmare stated that the body of the deceased was brought to him for post mortem on internal examination it was found that inside the head of the deceased there was an uveal nodule measuring 14 x 10 cm and was red in colour on both fronto parietal parts. There was a fracture on fronto parietal bone measuring 9 cm, Subdural hemorrhage on both fronto parietal parts measuring 110 CC, Subarachnoid hemorrhage over whole brain which was red in colour, Condensation on right frontal lobe of brain measuring 3 x 3 cm. He further stated that the cause of death was due to head injury and the report given by him is Ex.P-16. 14. In case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another reported in (1976) 4 SCC 382 the Court succinctly examined the distinction between Section 299 and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and in para 12 of the judgment held as under: 8 CRA No. 735/2016 "12. In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, 'culpable homicide' sans' special characteristics of murder, is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, culpable homicide of the first degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined in Section 300 as murder. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree’. This is punishable under the 1 part of Section 304. Then there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the second Part of Section 304." 15. It was further held that the difference between Clause (b) of Section 299 and Clause (3) of Section 300 is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. The word "likely" in Clause (b) of Section 299 conveys the sense of 'probable' as distinguished from a mere 9 CRA No. 735/2016 possibility. The words "bodily injury...sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death" mean that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury having regard to the ordinary course of nature. 16. It was laid down that the question whether is a murder or culpable homicide not amount to murder has to be decided on the suggestions. The first suggestion would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code is reached. 17. Therefore, taking into the facts into chronologically order, it would lead to show that the intention and the knowledge on the part of the appellant/ accused to cause death with the act may cause death has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be unreasonable 10 CRA No. 735/2016 concluded that the appellant had intention to cause death of the deceased. 18. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Victim, further considering the evidence adduced by the victim which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, I am of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit any illegality in convicting the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. 19. In view of the foregoing, the judgment dated 31.05.2016 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in ST No. 198/2014 whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated in Para 1 above, is hereby affirmed. 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 21. The appellant is stated to be on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith and/or be taken into custody for serving out the remaining period of sentence. he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the 11 CRA No. 735/2016 Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 22. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/Shoaib