Amar Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 201 of IPC (hereinafter referred to as the

'IPC')","R.I. for three years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in

default of payment to further undergo R.I. for six months

Under Section 304 Part-II of IPC,"R.I. for seven years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in

default of payment to further undergo R.I. for one year

Both the sentences to run concurrently,

On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment learned counsel for the State submitted that conviction of accused/appellant is strictly in",

accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same warranting interference by this Court.,

Heard learned counsel of the parties and have also perused the records of the trial Court.,

PW-1 Indrajeet Sahu is the neighbour and friend of the appellant. He also knows the deceased. He stated that there was love affair between the,

appellant and deceased. He also stated that one day before the date of incident he alongwith appellant went to village Temri by motorcycle and met,

the deceased at the field of village. From there the appellant took the deceased by motorcycle to Jain Mandir, Nagpura, where the appellant and",

deceased talked with each other for about half an hour and he was standing at some distance. He stated that there was some dispute between the,

appellant and the deceased. PW-1 also stated that thereafter, he and the appellant dropped the deceased to village Temri. PW-1 stated that on the",

next day, he and the appellant went towards Nagpura by motorcycle, when he asked the appellant as to where we were going, the appellant said at",

village Baloudi as the deceased was ill, she had to be taken to hospital. He stated that he and the appellant reached at Nagpura and searched for the",

deceased but she was not found there. PW-1 stated that on the next day the appellant informed him that the deceased was admitted in Ahiwara,

Hospital and that he came to know through the newspaper that the dead body of unknown lady was found in Sweti Nagapura and he suspected that,

the appellant would have committed murder of the deceased on the suspicion of her affair with another boy. Looking to the entire evidence of PW-1 it,

is proved that there was love affair between the appellant and the deceased and that fact is uncontroverted in cross-examination.,

PW-4 Kishore Sahu stated that he used to talk with the deceased through his mobile number i.e. 7354789530 as they were known to each other,",

he has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-4 only proved this fact that his relation with the,

deceased was only friendly.,

PW-6 Ku. Padmini Sahu is the sister of the deceased. She stated that she saw the appellant and her sister coming and going together. She further,

stated that the appellant had purchased the mobile and had given to her sister for talking. She admitted that her sister used to go to meet the appellant.,

Looking to the evidence of PW-1 and PW-6, it is clear that the appellant was having love affair with the deceased, they were in talking terms",

through mobile phone and just prior to her death dispute arose between them. Further, the appellant provided one mobile phone to the deceased, but no",

explanation was given by him for the same. The fact that the appellant after last meeting with the deceased, took her by motorcycle for leaving at",

Village Temri, was proved by Indrajeet Sahu (PW-1). As per merg intimation, the dead body of the deceased was found on the next day and there is",

no explanation given by the appellant as to why the dispute arose between them and he has even denied relations with the deceased. Nothing has been,

brought on record by the appellant as to why he was falsely implicated in the crime in question.,

Witnesses namely Arjun Singh Sonwani (PW-5) and Ramesh Kumar Sahu (PW-9) of memorandum statement (Ex.-P/9) of the appellant have,

turned hostile, but I.O. Basant Khalko (PW-15) on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant, seized mobile phone of the deceased, which",

was provided by the appellant to the deceased, vide seizure memo Ex.-P/7. PW-15 stated that the appellant stated in his memorandum statement that",

some dispute arose between the appellant and the deceased, the appellant assaulted the deceased by hands and fist due to which she fell down and",

became unconscious. Thereafter, the appellant covered the body of deceased with the bushes of mushroom and SIM of mobile phone of the deceased",

was broken, the said mobile phone was kept in his house in almirah and that fact is proved by PW-15 as per seizure memo Ex.-P/7, in which the",

seizure witnesses (PW-5 & PW-9) admitted their signatures. The appellant also disclosed this fact that he had provided one mobile phone to the,

deceased which has been duly proved by the evidence of PW-6. Therefore, recovery of mobile phone belonging the to the deceased given by the",

appellant stands proved beyond reasonable doubt.,

There is also call details of the appellant collected by the police during investigation Ex.-P/34 (hard copy) and the CD marked as Article 'A' and,

for certifying Ex.-P/34, a letter was written by the police to the Nodal Officer, BSNL, Office Raipur vide Ex.-P/20. PW-10 Rajdutt Gajbhiye, Nodal",

Officer, has given the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.-P/21 and has duly proved the same. No any explanation has",

been given by the appellant regarding the dispute that arose between him and the deceased, rather circumstances goes against the appellant, he totally",

denied meeting with the deceased or calling her through mobile phone, and even denied the fact that he has any relations with the deceased.",

Looking to the entire evidence of Indrajeet Sahu (PW-1), Ku. Padmani Sahu (PW-6), call details of the appellant vide Ex.-P/34, article seized from",

the appellant belongs to the deceased as stated by himself as some dispute arose between the appellant and the deceased on the date of incident,

because of which he committed murder of the deceased by assaulting her hands and fists. As per postmortem report Ex.-P/22, Dr. R.K. Nayak (PW-",

11) stated in his deposition that the injury can be sustained when deceased fell on the hard and blunt object, this fact is admitted by PW-11 in answer",

to question No.1 in his deposition. The appellant disclosed that he assaulted the deceased by hands and fist, she fell down and became unconscious,",

then he covered the body of the deceased by bushes of mushrooms. As per postmortem report Ex.-P/22, deceased died due to head injury.",

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court after discussing the entire evidence available on record and keeping in view",

the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) SCC 116, stated the present case",

is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances have been established by the prosecution, the circumstances proved are conclusive in nature,",

are consistent with hypothesis of guilt of the appellant and have been established by the prosecution of the following ground:-,

(1) On the date of incident, time and place, the death of the deceased due to head injury was established which was occurred in suspicious",

circumstances.,

(2) the appellant and the deceased were having love affair with each other was duly proved by unrebutted evidence.,

(3) In the present case, it was proved that there was dispute between the appellant and the deceased regarding previous love affair of the deceased",

with Kishore Sahu.,

(4) One day prior to the date of incident, the dispute arose between the appellant and the deceased, which was seen by Indrajeet Sahu (PW-1) and he",

has duly proved the same in his evidence.,

(5) As per call details of the appellant and the deceased both were present together at the place of occurrence.,

(6) On the said day the appellant told Indrajeet Sahu that the deceased was ill and had to be taken to hospital and searched for her by motorcycle with,

Indrajeet Sahu, such conduct of the appellant is highly doubtful.",

(7) On the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant, mobile phone & SIM of the deceased were seized from the possession of the appellant.",

(8) In addition to this, the witnesses have admitted this fact in cross-examination that the appellant was having love affair with the deceased and he",

also visited the village of the deceased to meet her.,

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant has either expressed his ignorance about incriminating circumstance appearing against,

him or denied the same in toto. As discussed above, it is evident that there are certain incriminating circumstances which have been duly proved by",

the oral evidence duly corroborated with medical evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is well settled principle of law that where the accused,

furnishes false answer to prove the facts, it serves as an additional circumstance to prove his guilt. In the matter of Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State",

(NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, the Supreme Court observed as under:",

“274. This Court has time and again held that where an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved facts, the Court ought to draw an",

adverse inference qua him and such an inference shall become an additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the accused. In this regard, the",

prosecution seeks to place reliance on the judgments of this Court in Peresadi vs. State of U.P., (1957) Crl.L.J. 328, State of M.P. vs. Ratan Lal, AIR",

1994 SC 458 and Anthony D'Souza vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 1 SCC 259 where this Court has drawn an adverse inference for wrong answers,

given by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the appellant-Manu Sharma has, inter alia, has taken false pleas in reply to",

question nos. 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65, 67, 72, 75 and 210 put to him under Section 313 of the Code.â€​",

In the matter of S. Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315, the Supreme Court held as under:",

“29. It is obligatory on the part of the accused while being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to furnish some explanation with respect to the",

incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the Court must take note of such explanation even in a case of circumstantial evidence in order",

to decide whether or not the chain of circumstances is complete. When the attention of the accused is drawn to circumstances that inculpate him in,

relation to the commission of the crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation, or gives a false answer with respect to the same, the said act",

may be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. (Vide: Munish Mabar v State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912).",

31 The prosecution successfully proved its case and, therefore, provisions of Section 113 (sic 113-B) of the Evidence Act 1872 come into play. The",

appellant/accused did not make any attempt, whatsoever, to rebut the said presumption contained therein. More so, Shanthi, deceased died in the",

house of the appellant. He did not disclose as where he had been at the time of incident. In such a fact-situation, the provisions of Section 106 of",

Evidence Act may also be made applicable as the appellant/accused had special knowledge regarding such facts, though he failed to furnish any",

explanation thus, the court could draw an adverse inference against him.â€​",

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court was fully justified in holding the appellant guilty under Sections",

304 Part-II and 201 of IPC based on the overall circumstantial evidence available on record.,

As regards the sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the dispute arose between the deceased and the appellant regarding",

relations of the deceased with another person, during the hot talk, the appellant assaulted the deceased by hands and fist due to which she fell down",

and became unconscious and succumbed to the injuries, no pre-meditation on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased, the age of",

the appellant at the time of incident i.e. 24 years, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served, if the jail sentence of the",

appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is reduced from seven years R.I. to five years R.I. while keeping fine sentence with default stipulation,

imposed by the trial Court intact.,

In view of the above discussions, the appeal succeeds in part. The conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the trial Court under",

Section 201 of IPC are maintained, The conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is also maintained, however, he is sentenced to",

undergo R.I. for five years in place of seven years as awarded by the trial Court. It is made clear that the fine sentence imposed on the appellant with,

default sentence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC by the trial Court shall remain intact. Appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, no order regarding",

his surrender, arrest etc. is required to be passed.",

Records of the case be sent back to the concerned trial Court immediately for doing the needful.,