AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.D. Rathi, J.—Heard on admission. This appeal has been preferred u/s 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa on 16/7/2010 in Sessions Trial No. 262/2008, whereby respondent nos. 1 and 2 namely Santosh Kumar Gupta and Smt. Malti Gupta have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). By the impugned judgment, they have been convicted u/s 304 Part II read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine stipulation.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22/6/80 at about 7.30 p.m., while Ramniwas Soni and Banwarilal were returning from Antrela, against a preexistent water dispute, respondent no. 1 abused Banwarilal after wrongfully restraining him in the way and exhorted his wife respondent no. 2 to kill him, on which she started wielding Lathi blows on Banwarilal, who fell sustaining head injury. Despite the intervention and resistance offered by Ramniwas, respondent nos. 1 and 2 kept on assaulting Banwarilal. Hearing the commotion, people of the locality gathered at the spot. After lodging of report (Ex. P/1) by Ramniwas, matter was investigated by Police Antrela and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Banwarilal was sent to Community Health Centre at Rewa. Banwarilal was examined and Injury report (Ex. P/14-A) was recorded by Dr. Harish Chandra Mishra (PW 9). Then he was referred for treatment to Jabalpur, where during treatment, he died.
It was argued on behalf of the appellant that despite availability of sufficient material on record for conviction of respondent nos. 1 and 2 u/s 302 of the IPC, they have been wrongly convicted u/s 304 Part II of the IPC.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have gone through the impugned judgment and evidence on record.
After proper appreciation of evidence, it has been held by the trial Court that the incident was not preplanned and no deadly weapon was used in committing the offence. Simply, deceased was assaulted with a Lathi. He had died after a period of 5 days. Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy, has also not been examined by the prosecution. In such circumstances, respondents were rightly convicted u/s 304 Part II read with 34 of the IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC.
In view of the aforesaid, no interference with the impugned judgment is called for. The appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.