State Of Chhattisgarh vs Firuram And Ors

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J

This acquittal appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 29-4-2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sessions Division Jashpur (CG) in Sessions

Trial No. 43 of 2003 wherein the said Court acquitted the respondents of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 452 of IPC, but

sentenced respondent Ashok for commission of offence under Sections 326 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for four years and to pay fine of

Rs.5000/- and convicted respondent Firuram for commission of offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for two months

and to pay fine of Rs.500/-.

In the present case, name of the deceased is Leranguram. It is alleged that Leranguram and his wife Lalki Bai were in the house situated at village

Devidadgaon on 16-4-2003 at about 8.pm and at the same time respondents entered into the house of Leranguram and charged Leranguram that he is

a black magician and thereafter they assaulted Leranguram and his wife Lalki Bai using battle axe and club. The matter was reported to Police

Station Jashpur. After registration of first information report, injured Leranguram was sent for medical examination to hospital where injuries were

found on his face, jaw and teeth. Injured Leranguram was admitted in hospital at Ranchi where he died on 22-4-2003 during course of treatment.

Earlier offence was registered under Section 325 of the IPC and after death of Leranguram it was converted into Section 302 of IPC. The matter

was investigated and charge sheet was filed against the respondents. After completion of trial, respondents were convicted as mentioned above.

Learned State counsel submits as under:

i) As death is caused due to assault by the respondents, there is sufficient evidence to convict the respondents under section 302 of IPC.

ii) Both respondents proceeded in furtherance of common intention, but the trial Court ignoring this fact convicted the respondent Firuram for offence

under Section 323 of IPC which is nothing but miscarriage of justice.

iii) Marshaling of medical evidence by the trial court is improper and conclusion suffers from material irregularity.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the record.

For establishing offence of murder, prosecution has to establish facts as mentioned in Section 300 of IPC which may be read as under. ""300.

Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, (I) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention

of causing death, or--

(ii) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is

caused, or--

(iii) If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course

of nature to cause death, or--

(iv) If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely

to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid

For commission of offence under Section 304 Part I or Part II of IPC and Section 307 of IPC, intention of the culprit has to be established as

mentioned above.

In the present case, PW/5 Dr. V.S. Bhagat examined the injured Leranguram on 17-2-2003 at District Hospital, Jashpur and noticed the following

injuries.

(i) Lacerated wound on superolateral aspect of right eye-brow 3 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.3cm

(ii) Lacerated wound on inner aspect of upper lip of mouth on left side measuring 1.5 cm x 0.5cmx0.3cm

(iii) Two abrasions on the palm of left knee (0.5x0.5cm each)

(iv) Right 1st upper incision , upper left 1st incision and left 2nd upper incision are broken and its root and shocket is covered with blood clots and

bleeds on separation of clottings.

(v) (I) x-ray skull lateral vein with mandible and (2) x-ray chest PA with both clavicle. As pt was irrigable and cannot stay hence the quality of x-ray

is very poor, therefore, report cannot be made according to x-ray and advised re-x-ray and C.T.Scan.

He opined that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt object and they are grievous in nature. The injured expired on 24-2-2003 and his

postmortem report is admitted by the defence side.

PW/1 Lalki Bai is the injured eye-witness. As per version of this witness respondent Ashok entered into the house with battle axe and respondent

Firuram with club and they assaulted Leranguram. She deposed that respondent Ashok assaulted her husband by battle axe. Version of this witness is

supported by version of medical expert and again it is supported by the first information report (Ex.P/20) and seizure of battle axe from respondent

Ashok Bhagat and other articles from the spot. Though human blood was not found on battle axe as per report of FSL, but when there is direct

evidence, the other piece of evidence is only corroborative in nature which is not required compulsorily to establish the guilt. As per version of PW/1

Lalki Bai both respondents have assaulted her with legs and fists and the trial Court convicted the respondent Firuram for causing voluntarily simple

hurt to her.

From the evidence of prosecution, it is established that respondent Ashok assaulted Leranguram by battle axe and as per version of PW/1 Lalki Bai

it is not a case that he assaulted Leranguram repeatedly. As per version of PW/1 Lalki Bai, respondent Ashok assaulted her husband by battle axe

only once which shows that he has no intention to cause death of Leranguram. In any case, death of injured is different and intention to cause death is

different.

From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that intention of the respondent Ashok was to cause grievous hurt by means of

battle axe but at any rate he has no intention to kill Leranguram. When intention to cause death is not proved, voluntarily causing grievous hurt by

battle axe is punishable under Section 326 of IPC for which the trial Court convicted the respondent Ashok and we are in agreement with the view

expressed by the trial Court. Again causing simple injury to Lalki Bai falls within mischief under Section 323 of IPC for which the trial Court convicted

the respondent Firuram and that is also not liable to be interfered with.

On overall assessment of the evidence, we are of the view that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is based on cumulative effect of relevant

facts and the same is not liable to be reversed or modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.