1 2025:CGHC:20404 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 273 of 2008 1. Rajendra S/o Rampyare, age 27 years, Occupation – Agriculturist. 2. Mohan S/o Ramsakal, age 27 years, Occupation – Laborer 3. Mahendra S/o Rampyare, age 37 years, Occupation – Agriculturist. 4. Ramsakal S/o Mahipal, age 70 years, Occupation – Agriculturist. All the resident of Village-Gargodi, P.S. – Basantpur, Distt.- Sarguja (CG). ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Kendra (P.S.) – Basantpur, Distt. Sarguja (CG) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Judgment On Board 05/05/2025 The appellants in this appeal are challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.2.2008 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja (CG) in ST No. 38/2007 whereby each of the appellants stands convicted under Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four years, pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof to suffer additional SI for one week. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prior to the date of incident, which took place on 22.4.2006, the accused persons had promised one Mahadev Gond of giving him a pig in lieu of a goat but they were not keeping their promise. Hence a meeting was convened in this regard at Village-Gargodi where the accused persons were also called upon. The accused persons, who were armed with club, were standing under a tree behind the house of complainant Raju Singh Gond (PW-1) and were calling the villagers to them who were present in the said meeting. When PW-7 Lalman and PW-8 Mahadev went to the accused, they beat them. On complainant’s intervention, he was also beaten by the accused persons. Meanwhile, father of the complainant namely Ramvriksh also reached the place of occurrence and he too was assaulted by the accused persons by means of club as 3 a result of which Ramvriksha sustained injuries over head and other parts of the body and succumbed to the same during the course of treatment. As per postmortem report, cause of death was cardio- respiratory failure as a result of head injury and its complication. Pursuant to memorandum statements of the accused persons, clubs were seized from them. After recording statements of the witnesses and completing the formalities of investigation, the police filed charge sheet under Section 302/34 of IPC before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302 of IPC, in alternative 302/34 of IPC against the accused persons, to which they abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 03. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. In their defence, they examined one Dr. Manju Ekka as DW-1. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned 4 trial Court did not appreciate the fact that as per evidence of PW-13 PD Minj (IO), FIR was lodged only against one Rajendra Singh alleging that he assaulted the deceased with club whereas the other accused persons were implicated in this case on exaggerated statements of the witnesses. From perusal of the evidence it appears to be a case of free fight between the complainant and the accused persons and it is also evident that there was neither any motive or intention nor even knowledge on the part of the accused that this sudden marpeet would result in death of Ramvriksha. Whatever happened was at the spur of moment during intervention by the deceased and as such, each of the accused ought to have been held responsible for their individual act whereas the learned trial Court held all of them guilty under Section 304 Part-II of IPC with the aid of Section 34 of IPC which is manifestly illegal. It has also come on record in the evidence of PW-7 Lalman that all the villagers were drunk and the quarrel ensued under the influence of liquor. In this case, the accused persons also received injuries during scuffle. He further submits that all the material witnesses hail from one and the same caste and as such, are interested witnesses. The witnesses to the memorandum and seizure also turned hostile. As per medical evidence, if immediate medical aid was provided to the deceased, there were chances of his survival. Thus, in the given set of evidence, at the most offence under Section 324 of IPC is made out against the accused persons. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside or modified accordingly. 5 Alternatively, learned counsel for the appellants submits that if this ultimately comes to the conclusion that conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC is proper, then considering the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the incident which took place in the year 2006, the appeal is pending since 2008, they have already remained in jail for about two years, their jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Reliance is placed on the decision in Lakshmi Chand and another Vs. State of UP reported in (2018) 9 SCC 704. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellants by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellants were charged under Section 302 of IPC in the alternative 302/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence they were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment under Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 6 09. PW-1 Raju Singh, son of the deceased, states in examination-in- chief that on the date of incident Lalman and Mahadev were quarreling in front of his house; the accused persons were beating Lalman and when Ramvriksha (father of PW-1) intervened, he too was beaten with club by the accused persons as a result of which he sustained injury on head and face and died on 29th. He remained firm in cross-examination and reiterated that it is the accused persons who committed marpeet with his father as a result of which he died. 10. PW-2 Harmunder, PW-3 Rambas (wife of the deceased), PW-7 Lalman and PW-8 Mahadev have supported the statement of PW-1. PW-4 Dilbodh, PW-5 Ustaj and PW-6 Vinod Kumar have not supported the prosecution case but PW-5 and PW-6 saw the accused persons running away from the place of occurrence. 11. PW-10 Dr. Rachna Arya medically examined Ramvriksha and noticed injuries over his right cheek and head. She noticed that his condition was critical and so after primary treatment referred to higher center for further treatment vide medical report Ex.P/17. 12. PW-11 Dr. RB Prajapati initially examined injured Ramvriksha on 22.4.2006 and noticed lacerated wound on head and contusion over temporal region and referred him to District Hospital, Ambikapur for further treatment vide Ex.P/16. 7 13. PW-16 Dr. Ulhas Gonade conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 29.4.2006 and gave his report Ex.P/18. In his opinion the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to head injury and its complications. 14. PW-12 Shivmangal Singh, ASI, prepared inquest memo Ex.P/5 before the witnesses and gave application for postmortem vide Ex.P/18. PW-13 PD Minj, registered merg intimation Ex.P/20 and conducted investigation and duly supported the prosecution case. 15. In view of the aforesaid unrebutted ocular evidence duly corroborated by the medical evidence, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused/appellants who during the course of quarrel with other persons assaulted the deceased with club on his intervention and thereby committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the assault was made and the role played by each of the accused persons, learned trial Court rightly held each of them guilty under Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC. As such, conviction of the appellants is hereby affirmed. 16. As regards sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the incident took place; the role attributed to the appellants; the fact that the incident took place in the year 2006; this appeal is pending since 2008 and they have remained 8 in jail for near about two years, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served in sending them back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be served if their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. While maintaining conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part-II/34 of IPC, their jail sentence is hereby reduced to the period already undergone by them. They are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.05.06 14:35:43 +0530