Amilal Bhagat vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No.74/2012 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (C.G.) by which the appellant stands convicted & sentenced as under:-

Conviction

Sentence

Under Section 302 of IPC

Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 28.02.2012 at 11:30 AM at village Khamhar Pakut the appellant assaulted deceased  Lalit Ram Bhagat (hereinafter called as deceased) by a Spade (Farsa), by which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries, resulting into his instantaneous death.

Further case of the prosecution is that on 28.2.2012, the appellant, deceased, P.W.1 Pradhan Rathia and P.W.2 Bhagat Ram were celebrating Guniyai Pooja, a local festival, near Pakut Dam, in which, they have organised party and pursuant to which, they were taking bath including deceased. All of sudden, the appellant herein came there armed with Spade and assaulted deceased behind the neck, on account of which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same, the information of which has been sent to Lailunga Police Station and on the basis of which, Merg intimation was recorded by the complainant Bhagat Ram vide Ex.P.1. F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P.2. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.14. After completion of inquest proceedings vide Ex.P.18, dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination vide Ex.P.4A to Community Health Center, Lailunga, where Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathia (P.W.4) conducted post-mortem vide Ex.P.4 and opined that the deceased died as a result of Haemorrhagic and spinal shock on account of incised wound over neck by a hard and sharp object and death was homicidal in nature. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P.7 and at the behest of the appellant, weapon of offence used in crime in question was recovered vide Ex.P.8. Vest of the deceased contained with bloodstains was seized vide Ex.P.9 and vide Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11, plain soil and bloodstained soil as also cloths of the appellant were seized. Seized articles were sent for examination to F.S.L. vide Ex.P.22, but no F.S.L. report has been brought on record. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P.12. A query report has been obtained vide Ex.P.5, in which, Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathiya (P.W.4) opined that the injury found on the neck of the deceased could have been caused by this weapon.

After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda and the case was committed to the Sessions Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, appellant/accused person abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 06 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 24 documents Exs.P-1 to P-24 whereas the appellant-accused person in support of his defence has exhibited one document Ex.D.1, statement of Bhagatram Urao recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

The trial Court, after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which this appeal has been preferred by him under Section 374(2) of the CrPC.

Shri Lokesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the said crime. P.W.1 Pradhan Rathia and P.W.2 Bhagat Ram, who were said to be eye-witnesses, have not seen the incident and as a matter of fact, they are not the eye-witnesses. There is no other evidence available on record to connect the appellant in crime in question. On these premises, he urged that the appellant may be acquitted of the charge.

On the other hand, Shri Soumya Rai, learned counsel for the State, while supporting the impugned judgment, would submit that in view of the corroborative statements of P.W.1 Pradhan Rathia and P.W.2 Bhagat Ram and further more Spade has been recovered at the behest of the appellant vide his memorandum statement and according to the medical evidence proved by Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathiya (P.W.4), the injury has been caused by the appellant upon back side of the neck of deceased, the appellant is not entitled to be acquitted and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

The first question for consideration would be whether the death of the deceased – Lalit Ram Bhagat was homicidal in nature, which the trial Court has recorded the finding in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P-4) proved by Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathia (PW-4) held the death to be homicidal in nature, which, in our considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding.

Now, the question would be, whether the trial Court has rightly relied upon the testimony of P.W.1 Pradhan Rathia and P.W.2 Bhagat Ram and held the appellant to be the author of the crime in question?

Case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, the appellant, deceased, P.W.1 Pradhan Rathia and P.W.2 Bhagat Ram, all were assembled and had gone to dam for celebrating local festival Guniyai Pooja, in which, they have organised a party, pursuant to which, they were taking bath including deceased. On the fateful day at 11:00 pm, all of sudden, the appellant herein came there armed with Spade and assaulted deceased behind the neck and caused one incised wound, on account of which, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. P.W.1 Pradhan Rathia and P.W.2 Bhagat Ram were present and witnessed the incident. P.W.1 Pradhan Rathia, while supporting the prosecution case, has clearly stated in his testimony that the deceased had gone to dam for bathing and all of sudden appellant herein came there armed with Spade (Tabbal), assaulted him and caused one incised wound over neck and after causing death of deceased, the appellant ran away. A perusal of evidence of this witness would leave no room for any doubt that P.W.1 Pradhan Rathia witnessed the incident while assaulting the deceased by the appellant. Similarly, P.W.2 Bhagat Ram has also clearly supported case of the prosecution. Perusal of evidence on record would also reveal that there was no previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased as they are cousins and nothing has been brought on record to show that present appellant has falsely been implicated in crime in question. This apart, pursuant to the appellant's memorandum statement, Spade (Tabbal) was recovered and according to the evidence of Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathia (P.W.4), the deceased suffered one incised wound, which could be caused by hard and sharp object although no F.S.L. report has been brought on record.

A query report has been obtained from Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathia (P.W.4) with regard to the injury found on the deceased, to which, the said Doctor has proved Report (Ex.P.5) by stating that the injury could be caused by the deceased by the hard and sharp object, which has been seized from the possession of the appellant. Though the deceased sustained one incised injury over his neck and that too grievous in nature, but the possibility that such injury could not have been caused by such hard and sharp object is ruled out in view of the statements of P.W.1 Pradhan Rathia and P.W.2 Bhagat Ram, who have unequivocally stated that the appellant made assault by Spade (Tabbal) over the deceased over his neck, which has also been noticed by Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathia (P.W.4) vide his post-mortem report (Ex.P.4). As such, in view of the statements of P.W.1 Pradhan Rathi and P.W.2 Bhagat Ram, it is evident that the appellant assaulted the deceased with Spade (Tabbal) and caused one incised wound over his neck, which was also corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Sarathia, who proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P.4).

In view of aforesaid discussion, in our considered opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime in question and as such the trial Court was absolutely justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 IPC. We do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and it is hereby maintained.

In the result, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.