Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 50 (CHH)

RAMJOOTHAN v. STATE OF C. G.

2014-02-07

C.B.BAJPAI, T.P.SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT T.P. Sharma, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.8.2009 passed by the Special/Sessions Judge, Koriya Baikunthpur in Special Sessions Trial No. 10/08 whereby & whereunder the Special/Sessions Judge after holding the appellant guilty for committing house breaking in night with intent to commit the offence punishable with capital sentence and causing homicidal death of deceased Budhram, amounting to murder, and also causing simple injuries to Ramkumar (PW-9), convicted him under Sections 302, 450 & 323 of the IPC and Sentenced to undergo R.I. for life; R.I. for 07 years & R.I. for 06 months respectively. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without an iota of evidence the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned, and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful day i.e. 17.1.2008 at about 11.30 p.m. in the night, unfortunate deceased Budhram was sleeping in his house. Ramkumar (PW-9) & Fatte Singh (PW-10), sons of deceased Budhram, were also sleeping in the same room. The appellant pushed the door, entered into the house, assaulted Budhram by wooden plank and thereafter left the house. Incident was witnessed by Ramkumar (PW-9) & Fatte Singh (PW-10). Injured was taken to the District Hospital, Baikunthpur where he died on 18.11.2008 at about 5.55 p.m. while undergoing treatment. Death was intimated to the police vide Ex.P-10. Merg was recorded vide Ex.P-9 and FIR was recorded vide Ex.P-8. Initially injured was examined by Dr. G.D. Baghel (PW-15) who noticed contusion over left parietal region of 7x5 cm, contusion of 3x2 cm over left eyebrow & lacerated wound over upper lips of 2 x 0.5 cm. He has referred the deceased to the Medical College, Raipur. The investigating officer, after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-1, prepared inquest over the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P-2. Dead body was sent for autopsy to the District Hospital, Baikunthpur where Dr. Rameshwar Sharma (PW-13) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-11 and noticed one abrasion of 8x6 cm size over right elbow joint, bleeding from both the ears, fracture of parietal bone into three pieces with blood clot in the brain. Mode of death was coma. Burned piece of wood and blood stained clothing were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-4. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 4. Mode of death was coma. Burned piece of wood and blood stained clothing were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-4. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baikunthpur, District Koriya, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Special/Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur) for trial. In order to prove guilt of the appellant, the prosecution had examined as many as 18 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. where he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence & false implication. The appellant has also examined Ramcharan (DW-1) & Narayan Prasad (DW-2) in his defence and they have deposed that the appellant is insane and used to roam without any purpose. 5. The trial Court, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph-l of this judgment. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that this is the case where offence has been committed by the person who is not of sound mind and therefore this case squarely falls within the Exception under Section 84 of IPC. The appellant was not able to understand right & wrong and good & bad. Factum of insanity has been proved by the defence by examining two witnesses and also proved by the prosecution witnesses who have admitted the factum of insanity of the appellant. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that to claim benefit of Exception under Section 84 of the IPC the appellant was under obligation to prove the fact that at the time of causing injury or at the time of incident, the appellant was the man of unsound mind. Heavy burden was upon the appellant to prove the said fact but the appellant utterly failed to discharge such burden. Whereas, the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt. 9. In order to appreciate arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 10. Heavy burden was upon the appellant to prove the said fact but the appellant utterly failed to discharge such burden. Whereas, the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of doubt. 9. In order to appreciate arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 10. In the present case homicidal death of the deceased as a result of fatal injuries found on body of the deceased has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. Even otherwise, from the evidence of Dr. Rameshwar Sharma (PW-13), Dr. G.D. Baghel (PW-15), injury report (Ex.P-10) & autopsy report (Ex.P-11), it is established that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 11. As regards complicity of the appellant is concerned, the prosecution had examined two eyewitnesses i.e. Ramkumar (PW-9), aged about 10 years, and Fatte Singh (PW-10), another son of the deceased who was present in the house and his presence in the room at the time of incident i.e. 11.30 p.m., was not unnatural. Fatte Singh (PW-10) has specifically deposed that the appellant came, pushed the door and thereafter assaulted his father by burning wooden plank (burning piece of wood) and caused fatal injury over his head. Defence has cross-examined the aforesaid witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything to discredit their evidence to the extent that the appellant did not rash the door of their house, did not enter the house and did not cause injuries to his father. The aforesaid evidence is sufficient to infer that the appellant had caused homicidal death of the deceased. 12. As regards the question of motive, motive only aids in criminality and in case of direct evidence it loses its importance. Motive can be inferred on the basis of the weapon used, part of the body effected, nature of injury and other similar circumstances. 13. Defence of insanity/unsoundness of mind available under Section 84 of the IPC as Exception has taken by the appellant in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act. Heavy burden to prove the Exception was upon the appellant. 13. Defence of insanity/unsoundness of mind available under Section 84 of the IPC as Exception has taken by the appellant in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act. Heavy burden to prove the Exception was upon the appellant. In order to discharge this burden the appellant was under obligation to prove the factum of insanity by examining an expert in the field i.e. doctor, but the reasons best known to the appellant, he has failed to examine any doctor inter alia he has examined his father Ramcharan who has deposed that the appellant is man of half mind. Admission of prosecution witness and evidence of defence witnesses revealed that the appellant is not a man of sound mind but also not of man of sound mind. It appears that he is man of weak mind unable to understand right/wrong & good/bad in its letter and spirit. Even during the course of his cross-examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. he has not shown anything contrary for drawing presumption that the appellant is man of unsound mind, but as deposed by the witnesses, the appellant has caused injury without any motive and there was no occasion for causing such injury. Even he has not repeated injury and after causing one blow, he left the house which revealed that the appellant has caused homicidal death of the deceased and at the time of causing injury the appellant was having knowledge that due to his act the deceased may die but he has not caused homicidal death amounting to murder. Therefore, act of the appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, however, while convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of IPC, the Court below has not considered the aforesaid circumstances and thereby committed illegality. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient to establish the fact that the appellant has committed house breaking in night and caused homicidal death of the deceased not murdered. He has also caused simple injuries to Ramkumar. 14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction & sentence of the appellant under Section 323 of IPC are hereby maintained. Conviction under Section 450 of the IPC is also hereby maintained, however, instead of R.I. for 7 years, the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years. He has also caused simple injuries to Ramkumar. 14. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction & sentence of the appellant under Section 323 of IPC are hereby maintained. Conviction under Section 450 of the IPC is also hereby maintained, however, instead of R.I. for 7 years, the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 years. Conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC is altered into Section 304 Part-II of IPC and he is sentenced to R.I. for 6 years. The appellant is in custody from 22.1.2008 and thereby he has completed sentence of six years, therefore, he be released at once if not required in any other case. 15. Certified copy as per rules. Appeal Partly Allowed.