Suresh Tandi vs State Of C.G.

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the

IPC')","Life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.2,000/- and, in

default to pay fine amount, further RI for one year.

Under Section 323 IPC,Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

Sentences have been directed to run concurrently.,

(P.W.10) is a formal witness.,

Dr. Rakesh Agrawal (P.W.11) has examined the injures sustained by Kantibai and Jagsai and submitted his M.L.C. reports vide Ex.P.16 &,

Ex.P.17 by opining that the injuries sustained by Kantibai are simple in nature. Dr. Virendra Kumar Singh (P.W.12) has conducted the post-mortem,

examination on the dead body of deceased Gangaram and noticed the following injuries :-,

(1) Contusion of 7 x 4 cm over left temporal region,

(2) Contusion of 5 x 3 cm over right temporary region.,

(3) Contusion of 4 x 3 cm over upper occipital region,

After noticing the aforesaid injuries, he has submitted his report vide Ex.P.13 by opining that the cause of death was shock due to massive internal",

haemmorhage, which occurred as a result of head injury. He opined further that mode of death was homicidal in nature.",

Kedarnath (P.W.13) is an Investigating Officer and has assisted the prosecution case.,

Manjeet (D.W.1) was examined by the appellant in his defence but he has not stated anything about the occurrence of the alleged crime.,

Upon close scrutiny of the entire evidence adduced by the parties, particularly, the statement of injured eyewitness Kantibai (P.W.1), the mother",

of the appellant Sanjay Tirkey, it is evident that the alleged incident took place on 12.07.2011 at 4.00 PM when the deceased returned home after",

ploughing his land and told his son, in an admonition manner, to do some work in the field, which made the appellant enraged to assault his father with",

a wooden vessel on his head resulting in his death instantly. Perusal of further prosecution evidence would reveal that the mother of the appellant,

Kantibai was also assaulted when she tried to intervene the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the involvement of the",

accused/appellant in the alleged crime is thus established beyond doubt. In consequence, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in arriving at a",

conclusion that the appellant has not only assaulted his father with a wooden vessel which resulted in his instantaneous death but has assaulted his,

mother also and has caused injuries. The findings so recorded by the trial Court, therefore, deserves to be and are hereby affirmed.",

As far as the contention of the counsel for the appellant based upon the said case law, i.e., Roopan Sai & Another v. State of M.P. (Now C.G.)",

(supra) that the appellant, under the facts and circumstances, can be convicted either under Part-II or Part-I of Section 304 IPC is, however, noted to",

be rejected as the facts involved in the said case is entirely different from the facts involved in the present case. That is the case where the accused,

persons and the deceased had consumed liquor and all of a sudden a quarrel took place between them and it was the deceased, who first started",

abusing the accused persons and, in such circumstances, it was held that the incident occurred because of heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel",

without premeditation or intention. However, in the instant case, there was no sudden quarrel occurred between the father (deceased) and his son",

(appellant) so as to hold that the alleged incident took place as a result of sudden quarrel, as contended by Shri Kesharwani. In such an eventuality, it",

is difficult to hold that the act of the appellant while committing the alleged crime comes within the purview of any of the exceptions provided under,

Section 300 IPC, so as to hold the appellant guilty under Section 304 IPC.",

In view of foregoing discussions, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.",