Chintaram And ORS. v. The State Of C.G

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.1031 of 2001

1. Chintaram, son of Pyarelal, aged about 60 years, occupation Farmer,

2. Tilakram, son of Chintaram, aged about 23 years, occupation Farmer,

3. Jeevan, son of Chintaram, aged about 30 years, occupation Farmer, All residents of Village Khamaria, Police Station Nandghat, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board 7.12.2017 1.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.9.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No.373 of 1992 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bemetara convicting and sentencing the accused/Appellants as under:

Conviction Sentence Under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code Fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation Under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code Fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation 2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.8.1992 at about 5:00 p.m., Complainant Santram (PW3) was at his house along with his family members. The accused/Appellants came there, abused him in front of his house. Complainant Santram came out. Appellant No.1 Chintaram with Tangiya and Appellants No.2 and 3 with Lathi assaulted him. Komal (PW7), son of Complainant Santram came there. They assaulted him also. First Information Report (Ex.P11) was lodged by Complainant Santram. Both Santram and Komal

were examined by Dr. S.M. Pandey (PW6). Ex.P22 is the report in respect of medical examination of Santram and Ex.P23 is the report in respect of medical examination of Komal. During investigation, vide seizure memo (Ex.P1), a Tangiya made of iron was seized from Appellant No.1 and vide seizure memo (Ex.P3 and P5), 2 bamboos were seized from Appellants No.2 and 3. Dr. S.M. Pandey (PW6) examined these 3 articles also and vide his reports (Ex.P24, P25 and P26), he opined that the injuries suffered by Santram and Komal could be caused by these articles. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed under Sections 307, 324, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Appellant Chintaram, under Sections 307/34, 324/34, 323 of the Indian Penal Code against Appellant Tilakram and under Sections 307/34, 324/34, 323 of the Indian Penal Code against Appellant Jeevan. 3.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statements of the Appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. 3 witnesses have been examined in their defence.

4.

After trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants argued that the incident took place within the premises of the Appellants, but

Complainant Santram and his son Komal were the actual aggressor because they came inside the courtyard of the house of the Appellants and assaulted the Appellants with Lathi. The injuries suffered by the Complainant and his son were caused by the Appellants in their self defence. The Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record properly. The conviction imposed upon the Appellants is erroneous. Therefore, the Appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges framed against them.

6.

Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment.

7.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record minutely.

8.

Complainant Santram (PW3) has deposed that on the date of incident at about 4:30 p.m., he along with his family members was present inside his house. At that time, the Appellants began to abuse them and threatened that they will see them on their coming of home. He came out of home. Appellant Chintaram assaulted on his head with a Tangiya. Having heard the shouts, his son Komal (PW7) came out of home. Komal was also assaulted by Appellant Chintaram with the Tangiya. He has further stated that Appellants Tilakram and Jeevan also assaulted him and his son Komal with Lathi. The incident was witnessed by Parsu and Khilawan. He lodged the FIR (Ex.P11). His son Komal (PW7) has duly corroborated the above statement of his father Santram (PW3) and has stated that when his father went outside their house, Appellant Chintaram assaulted his father with a Tangiya.

When he went to save his father, Appellant Chintaram assaulted him also with the Tangiya. Thereafter, Appellants No.2 and 3 assaulted him and his father with Lathi.

9.

Eyewitness Ramkhilawan (PW4) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. But, he has stated that a quarrel had taken place between both the parties and he had seen Complainant Santram (PW3) and his son Komal (PW7) in injured condition.

10.

Dr. S.M. Pandey (PW6) examined injured Complainant Santram (PW3) and gave his report (Ex.P22). He also examined injured Komal (PW7) and gave his report (Ex.P23). He also examined Appellants Jivan and Tilakram and gave his reports (Ex.D2 and D3).

11.

Dr. B.N. Dewangan (PW8) took out x-ray of Complainant Santram. No fracture was found in the x-ray examination. His report is Ex.P23.

12.

Bhagwat (PW1) is the witness of seizure memo (Ex.P1 to P10). He has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile.

13.

Pritambai (PW2), daughter of Complainant Santram has supported the case of the prosecution and stated that on being shouted by Appellant Chintaram, her father and brother went out of the home and thereafter the Appellants assaulted them. 14.

Investigating Officer R.D. Sonwani (PW5) has stated that he had seized a Tangiya made of iron form Appellant Chintaram vide

Ex.P1, a bamboo from Appellant Tilakram vide Ex.P3 and a bamboo from Appellant Jeevan vide Ex.P5 and had sent them for examination. Dr. S.M. Pandey (PW6) is the witness who had examined these articles. His report in this regard is Ex.P24, P25 and P26. He opined that the injuries suffered by Santram (PW3) and Komal (PW7) could be caused by these articles. 15.

Ghanshyam (DW1) has deposed that Appellant Chintaram and Complainant Santram are uncle and nephew in relation. There was a dispute in their houses. A village meeting was also conducted in this regard. He has further stated that next day of the village meeting, he had heard that Santram and his son Komal had assaulted the Appellants.

16.

Gayaram (DW3) has also deposed in similar fashion, but he has admitted that no assault had taken place in his front. Daduram (DW2) is the witness of village meeting only. 17.

On minute examination of the evidence on record, it reveals that on the date of incident, Complainant Santram (PW3) and his son Komal (PW7) were assaulted by the Appellants with Tangiya and Lathi. Statement of Santram is duly corroborated by Komal and Pritambai (PW2). Ramkhilawan (PW4) has also admitted that a quarrel had taken place between both the parties and he had seen Santram and Komal in injured condition. From the statement of Dr. S.M. Pandey (PW6) also, it is established that both Santram and Komal had sustained injuries. Though as per the statement of Dr. S.M. Pandey (PW6) Appellants Jivan and Tilakram had also sustained injuries yet there is nothing on record to show that the injuries suffered by them were caused by the Complainant party.

There is nothing on record to show that Santram and Komal were the aggressors.

18.

In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

19.

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Gopal