1 2025:CGHC:3792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 330 of 2021 + 1 - Sahil Singh Anchal S/o Shri Balram Singh Anchal Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Pachpedi, Indira Nagar, Police Station- Pachpedi, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Pachpedi, Civil And Revenue District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Shri Tarun Dansena, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ) Judgment on Board 21/01/2025 This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.03.2021 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Trial No.108/2020 whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the commission of offence under Section 3o4 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for two months. 2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that on 07.04.2020, report was lodged by the complainant alleging that the accused persons had assaulted him, Budhram and Ramkhilawan with hands and sticks as a result of which Ram Khilawan sustained grievous injuries on the head and during treatment he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. On the basis of the said report, crime was registered against the appellant and others under Sections 147,148, 149 and 302 IPC. The appellant was arrested and statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charges were framed against the accused/appellants and after examination of the prosecution case and conclusion of trial, the present appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties, trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. Hence this appeal. 5. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment impugned is perverse and contrary to the facts. The appellant has been wrongly convicted and the actual facts of 3 the case is that the complainant came to the house of the appellant and abused him, started assaulting and in the meanwhile, when the other accused persons came and tried to intervene, they were also assaulted and one of them ie. Ramkhilawan sustained grievous injury on his head and died. He submits that the appellant was not having any intention and he was trying to pacify the dispute. He further submits that the deceased himself was aggressive party and the appellant and there is no involvement of the appellant in the crime in question. It is further submitted that the incident occurred in the house of the appellant and the independent witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned conviction and sentence and submits that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and the impugned judgment warrants no interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. To appreciate the rival submissions and in order to test the validity and correctness of the impugned conviction I have perused the entire record. 9. It is the case of prosecution that on the date of incident, on the basis of information given by the complainant, the FIR Ex.P-4 was lodged alleging that the accused/appellant and other accused persons have committed maar peeth and killed Ramkhilawan @ Rammanohar Madhukar. On the basis of the said information, Crime was registered under Sections 147,148 and 302/149 IPC. Spot map was prepared and 4 the body was sent for postmortem examination. From the facts of the case, first of all, it has to be looked into the cause and nature of death of deceased Ramkhilawan. 10. Budhram (PW-1) has stated that deceased Ramkhilawan is his brother and on the date of incident, there was some quarrel between the appellants and the complainant, the deceased and Parmeshwar went to the house of the present appellant to assault Dilraj, at that time, the present appellant assaulted with club whereas Shakeel assaulted with Rule on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, Ramkhilawan was taken to Masturi Hospital where he was declared dead. Merg intimation Ex.P- 21 was given and the body was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Centre, Masturi, Bilaspur where Dr. Mahendra Kumar Madhukar had conducted the postmortem and opined that the cause of death was due to massive blunt traumatic head injury and it complications and massive intracranial hemorrhage and death was homicidal in nature. 11. Surya Madhukar (PW-2), son of the deceased has stated that on the date of incident, his father had gone to pacify the dispute but the present appellant assaulted his father with lathi whereas the co-accused Shakeel assaulted on his head from behind. He has stated that when he reached there, his father was dead. He was taken to Masturi hospital where the doctors have declared him dead. 12. Parmeshwar (PW-3) has stated that on 06.04.2020, at about 7.00-7.30 pm the accused appellants Sahil, Shakeel and Bobby committed maar peeth with his son Dildar and at that time, grand parents of the accused/appellants Sahil and Shakeel were present. 5 Thereafter his son informed about the incident to his father whereupon deceased Ram Khilawan, Budhram and Manoj went to the house of the appellants and asked them as to why they had assaulted Dildar and then the appellants assaulted the deceased from behind causing his death. 13. Similar statement has been made by Dildar (PW-4) and Manoj Kumar Madhukar (PW-5). Dr. Mahendra Madhukar (PW-6) is the Medical Oficer who conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of Ram Khilawan and according to him, the cause of death was due to massive blunt traumatic head injury and it complications and massive intracranial hemorrhage and death was homicidal in nature. 14. Thus, according to the eye-witnesses, the way the incident happened would show that while the deceased had gone to the house of the appellants to pacify the matter but the appellants assaulted him from behind on the head and caused his death. It is not in dispute that the deceased and the other three persons had gone to the house of the appellant and there was quarrel between them and in a spur of moment, the incident took place and there was no intention or motive to commit the crime by the appellant, the incident occurred all of a sudden in the heat of passion and therefore I am of the considered opinion that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is hereby maintained. So far as the sentence part is concerned, the appellant is in jail since the date of his arrest ie. 07.04.2020, I am of the view that ends of justice would 6 be served if the sentence imposed on him is reduced to the period undergone by him. The accused/appellant is in jail, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.05.08 11:37:43 +0530