Basant Kumar vs Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

N. K. Chandravanshi, J

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against impugned judgment dated 21-5-2013 passed by the 2nd Upper Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Sessions Case No. 50/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Sr.

No.

Conviction under Section

Sentence

Fine sentence

Default stipulation

1.

S. 5 of CG. Tonhi Pratadana Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005

RI for 5 years

Rs. 200/-

RI for 1 month

2.

S. 302 of IPC (twice)

Life imprisonment (twice)

Rs.  500/-

(twice)

RI for 4 months (twice)

All the substantive jail sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that, in the night at 00.30 am of 1-6-2012, Sahdev Dhruve (P.W. 1) lodged first information report against appellant alleging therein that at 4 pm of 31-5-2012, his daughter had gone to old house to bring paddy, then the appellant assaulted her, hence she came weeping and told about the incident to him, therefore, to convene meeting in the village, he sent his wife Manbai to call village people and he himself went to call village Kotwar. At about 7.15 pm, when he returned to his house, then his daughter Sandhya was weeping and told him that appellant has assaulted her mother Manbai and brother Lokesh. Due to injuries sustained by Manbai, she had died and Lokesh had also sustained various injuries and blood was oozing from them. On being asked, Lokesh told him that appellant has assaulted him and his mother by means of knife and axe and fled away. Sandhya (P.W. 4) also told him this fact. Lokesh was taken to hospital at Ambagarh Chowki in Ambulance. Complainant Sahdev (P.W. 1) further stated that due to property dispute and doubt of playing witchcraft by Manbai, appellant has killed them.

2.1 At Community Health Centre, Ambagarh Chowki, MLC report Ex. P-25A of Lokesh was prepared by Dr. R.R. Dhurve (P.W. 13). Thereafter, dying declaration (Ex. P-8) of Lokesh was recorded by the investigating officer (P.W. 12) at 10.00 pm on 31-5-2012. After some time, Lokesh also succumbed to the injuries. Inquest report Ex. P-14 and Ex. P-3 of both the deceased were prepared by the Investigating Officer (P.W. 12). Post portem on the dead bodies of both the deceased were conducted by Dr. Umesh Shrivastava (P.W. 6), in which he opined that cause of death of both the deceased was hypovolumic shock/shock due to hemorrhage and duration of death might be within 12 to 24 hours from the post mortem. He prepared post mortem report Ex. P-17 and Ex. P-18 of Manbai and Lokesh respectively.

2.2 On the basis of memorandum statement Ex. P-9 of appellant, one axe and one knife containing blood stains were seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-11 respectively, blood stained T shirt of appellant was also seized vide Ex. P-12 by putting off the same which he wore, clothes of deceased Manbai and Lokesh were seized vide Ex. P-7, spot map was prepared by Patwari vide Ex. P-16, and spot map Ex. P-15 was prepared by Investigating Officer (PW 12). Query report Ex. P-19 in respect of seized articles axe and knife was obtained from Dr. Umesh Shrivastava (P.W. 6). Query report in respect of the blood stains on clothes of both the deceased was also obtained vide Ex. P-20. Statement of witnesses were recorded and appellant was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet under Section 302, 307 of IPC and Section 4 and 5 of Tonhi Pratadana Nivaran Adhinimay, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tonhi Act’) was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambagarh Chowki, who in turn committed the same to the Sessions Judge. Thereafter case was tried by the Upper Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon. During trial, learned Upper Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 302 (twice) of IPC and Section 5 of the Tonhi Act and explained to the appellant who abjured his guilt. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, exhibited 30 documents and 2 articles. Statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in respect of circumstances appearing against him in the evidence in which he denied those circumstances and pleaded not guilty and false implication. He also examined 3 witnesses in his defence. After considering oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per case of the prosecution, Sandhya (P.W. 4) is said to be an eye-witness of the instant case, but her statement is full of contradiction and improbabilities. The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 7.00 pm in night and there was no light, as per the eye-witness (P.W. 4), she had seen the incident from a distance, which as per Patwari Naksha Ex. P-16, is more than 49 fts. from the place of occurrence, hence to recognize a person in night from such a distance is not possible. More over, she has stated in cross-examination that height of bushes behind which she was standing and alleged to have seen the incident, was more than her height. It is further submitted that the so called eye-witness Sandhya (P.W. 4) is daughter and sister of deceased Manbai and Lokesh respectively, but she neither made any attempt to save them nor called villagers to save them. Her this conduct is very much unnatural. In this regard, she relied on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh - v- State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 19 SCC 165]. It is further submitted that learned trial Court has also relied on dying declaration Ex. P-8 of deceased Lokesh, who as per medical report, had sustained various injuries even on vital parts also and after 4 hours he was taken to Community Health Centre, Ambagarh Chowki, his condition was very much serious, which has also been admitted by the witnesses including the doctor and he succumbed to the injuries within 15 minutes while medical examination. She submits that there are contradictions in the evidence of witnesses as to what statement he made in his dying declaration, the dying declaration was neither recorded by any magistrate nor doctor, it is neither in question-answer form nor signed by the deceased, despite all these discrepancies, learned trial Court has relied on dying declaration Ex. P-8, which is against the settled preposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel further submits that alleged weapon axe and knife have also not been seized at the behest of appellant, the doctor has also not stated in his query report as to which injuries of both the deceased were caused by which weapon. Evidence of witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions. It is evident from the statement of complainant (P.W.1) and his daughter Sandhya (P.W. 4) that they have enmity with the appellant over the property dispute. Plea of alibi taken by the appellant has also been proved by the defence witnesses that at the time of alleged incident, the appellant had gone to village Khadkhadi for getting treatment of his daughter which was disbelieved by learned trial Court only because they did not say this fact to the police, whereas in the case of State of Haryana - v- Ram Singh [(2002) 2 SCC 426], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with that of prosecution, because evidence of prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses stand on equal footing and no premium is to be given to prosecution witnesses. Therefore, if the evidence of defence witnesses is truthful and reliable, then reliance should be placed on the same. Further, in the case of Dudh Nath Pandey - v- State of UP [1981 (2) SCC 166], Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that defence witnesses are entitled for equal treatment with those of the prosecution.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that the instant incident is said to be taken place at 7.00 pm in the month of May, which happens to be summer season and in such season, at 7.00 pm there is no such dark that one cannot recognize people from such a small distance, like in other seasons, as distance of two places i.e. Badi where Sandhya was present and place of incident shown in spot map Ex. P-15 and Ex. P-16. Hence, statement of eye-witness Sandhya (P.W. 4) cannot be disbelieved. He would further submit that immediately after the incident, villagers came to the spot, whom Sandhya (P.W. 4) told that the appellant is perpetrator of the crime, which deceased had also stated in his dying declaration Ex. P-8, and which is well supported by witnesses and the doctor, blood stained knife and axe were also seized at the behest of appellant along with his T shirt which also was stained with blood. This fact has further been proved by FSL report. It is next submitted that judgment passed by learned trial Court is well reasoned and well merited, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment, record of the trial Court and material available on record.

Sahdev (P.W. 1) who is husband of deceased Manbai and father of deceased Lokesh, has deposed that in the fateful evening of 31-5-2012, Manbai and Lokesh had sustained various injuries on their bodies including vital parts, and due to such injuries caused to them, Manbai died on the spot and Lokesh died after about 5 hours. These facts have also been supported by Hariram (P.W. 3), Ramcharan (P.W. 5), En Singh (P.W. 9) and Investigating Officer Yadumani Sidar (P.W. 12), who prepared inquest report Ex. P-3 and Ex. P-14 of both the deceased persons. Dr. Umesh Shrivastava (P.W. 6) had conducted post mortem of both the deceased and prepared post mortem reports of Manbai (Ex. P-17) and Lokesh (Ex. P-18) in which he found following injuries :-

Manbai :-

Cut present over trachea seen from outside, bleeding from nose and mouth found.

Injuries :

i. Incised wound over right side of nose 4 x 1 x 1 cm size.

ii. Incised wound over left angle of mandible 3 x 1 x .5 cm in size

iii. Incised would found over interior side of neck 8 x 2 x 1.5 cm in size

iv. Incised wound over left shoulder 3 x 1 x 1 cm in size

v. Incised wound over left wrist 5 x 1 x .5 cm in size.

vi. Incised wound present over left side of abdomen 6 x 3 x 1 cm in size, lateral to umblicus.

Vii. Lacerated wound just above the umblicus 3 x 1 x .5 cm in size

viii. Lacerated wound over right side of back 3 x 1 x .5 cm in size

ix. Incised wound seen left side of lower lip 4 x 2 x 1 cm in size.

The doctor opined that cause of death might be shock due to haemorrhage within 12 to 24 hrs. from post mortem.

Lokesh Kumar

Some part of stomach and intestine seen outside the body, eye and mouth closed, multiple wound seen all over the body

Injuries

i. Incised wound neck to right shoulder 8 x 4 x 1 cm in size

ii. Incised wound over xiphisternum 5 x 2 x 1 cm in size

iii. Incised wound below and above the right shoulder size 2 x 1 cm.

iv. Incised wound present near umblicus 8 x 3 cm in size, some part of stomach and intestine present outside the body.

v. Incised wound over right forearm 8 x 3 x 2 cm in size bone seen outside.

vi. Incised wound seen over right arm 6 x 2 x 1 cm in size deep upto muscle.

vii. Below right and left side of lower lip 2.5 x 1 x .5 incised wound present,

Cut present on spleen.

The doctor opined that cause of death might be shock due to hypervolumic haemorrhage within 12 to 24 hrs. from post mortem.

Dr. Umesh Shrivastava (P.W. 6) has proved PM reports Ex. P-17 and Ex. P-18 in his deposition, although he has not stated nature of death in both the PM reports but in deposition he has stated that nature of death of both the deceased was homicidal.

Learned trial Court after considering the evidence, both medical and ocular evidence, has held that nature of death of both the deceased was homicidal, which is finding of fact, based on evidence available on record. Considering the evidence in this regard, we also agreed with the finding of learned trial Court, that death of both the deceased was homicidal in nature.

So far as allegation upon the appellant with regard to commission of murder of both the deceased is concerned, in this regard, case of the prosecution against the appellant rests in 3 sets of evidence (i) direct evidence of eye-witness Sandhya (P.W. 4), (ii) dying declaration of deceased Lokesh, and (iii) seizure of weapons at the behest of appellant.

Sandhya (P.W. 4) has categorically deposed that she had seen the appellant assaulting her mother Manbai and brother Lokesh by means of axe and knife and due to repeated injuries caused to them, her mother Manbai died on the spot and her brother Lokesh got seriously injured and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Although she had stated in her cross-examination that the hut/Badi, from where she saw the incident, was surrounded by fence/boundary made by bushes, which were more than of her height, but she had seen the incident from the hole of fence. Learned counsel for the appellant questioned her statement that since incident took place at about 7.00 pm in the night when there was darkness, hence it cannot be possible to see assailant from the courtyard as has been shown in the spot map Ex. P-15 and Ex. P-16. He would further submit that her position has not been shown in the spot map also, hence she cannot be accepted as an eye-witness.

As per FIR (Ex. P-1) which was recorded within 5.30 hours of the incident and statement of witnesses, the incident took place at 7.00 pm but it was a month of May i.e. summer season and in summer season, at 7.00 pm darkness is not such that one cannot recognize a person from such distance from where the eye-witness Sandhya (P.W. 4) saw the incident. Ramcharan (P.W. 5) has also stated that at the time of incident, it was not dark, he has further stated that the villagers consider evening and night to be the same.

Hariram (P.W. 3) has deposed that hearing hue and cry of daughter of Manbai (Sandhya), he and various other villagers had gone to their new house. Ramcharan (P.W. 5), Leelabai (P.W. 7) and En Singh (P.W. 9) also went to the spot, where they saw dead body of Manbai and Lokesh who had sustained various injuries, whom Sandhya (P.W. 4) had held and weeping. They have further deposed that Sandhya told them that the appellant had assaulted her mother and brother and caused injuries to them. They sent injured Lokesh to hospital after calling Ambulance. As per statement of Sandhya (P.W. 4) after reaching of villagers, her father Sahdev (P.W. 1) also came on the spot whom she narrated about the incident, which is well supported by her father Sahdev. Thus immediately, after reaching these witnesses/ villagers, telling them by Sandhya (P.W. 4) about the instant crime committed by the appellant also supports her status of eye-witness. Although there are some contradictions and omissions in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and court statement, but they are too minor and not sufficient to discard her statement. She has denied the suggestion that she had not seen the incident.

It is also pertinent to mention that as per FIR Ex. P-1 and statement of witnesses, dispute arose at 4 pm after the appellant assaulted Sandhya (P.W. 4). She has deposed in her deposition that at the time of incident, they used to take meal in their new house and after telling Patel/village people, her mother had returned and she along with her mother and brother were present in the house. At that time, appellant came there and assaulted the deceased, hence, her natural conduct also shows her presence at the spot at the time of incident.

In the case of Amar Singh (supra) referred by learned counsel for the appellant, so called eye-witness and his brother were present at the spot, even then they did not make any attempt to intervene and did not try to save the other brother being assaulted by the accused persons merely on the threat extended by the assailant armed only with hockey stick and knife, they also did not take him to nearby medical clinic nor called doctor to provide first aid nor informed police, hence considering their such unnatural conduct, Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to accept that they were eye-witnesses of the incident. But, in the instant case, eye-witness is about 15 years aged girl who had seen assaulting repeatedly by appellant to her mother and when her brother aged about 6 years reached there, appellant also assaulted him by axe and knife. She has stated that looking to all this, she scared, therefore, she did not make any effort to intervene in the incident. Her such conduct is quite natural and facts of instant case are not similar to those the judgment cited above. Hence we do not agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that conduct of eye-witness Sandhya (P.W. 4) was unnatural.

With respect to presence of witness in the map/ site plan, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation and anr. v. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum and ors. [(2019) 12 SCC 1] has observed that when witness is not shown in the spot map, ocular evidence of witness cannot be discarded on the ground that he was not shown in the site map or spot map. More over, Sandhya (P.W. 4) has not been confronted with the site plan and no question was asked to her with regard to her position in the site plan (Ex. P-15), rather she has stated in her deposition that while preparing map, she had shown the spot. Hence, not showing position of Sandhya (P.W. 4) in site plan is not sufficient to disbelieve her.

In the case of Amar Singh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. [see Sunil Kumar -V- State (NCT of Delhi) (2003) 11 SCC 367]. In the instant case, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the statement of Sandhya (P.W. 4). Hence, learned trial Court has not committed any error in accepting her as eye-witness and relying on her statement.

Apart from eye-witness, there is also dying declaration of Lokesh (deceased) in which he has stated that appellant is a person who killed her mother and assaulted him also by means of knife, thereby he sustained injuries over his stomach, head and chest. Yadumani Sidar (P.W. 12) who recorded dying declaration (Ex. P-8) and Hariram (P.W. 3) and Ramcharan (P.W. 5) are the witnesses of the same and they have also supported Ex. P-8. These witnesses and Dr. R.R. Dhurve (P.W. 13) have stated that while making aforesaid statement, condition of Lokesh (Deceased) was serious, but they have denied suggestion in cross-examination that Lokesh has not made such statement. Dr. R.R. Dhurve (P.W. 13) has also certified this fact in Ex. P-8.

Ex. P-8 has not been recorded by any Magistrate and it is not in question-answer form, because as per Investigating Officer (P.W. 12), Magistrate was not present in the headquarter and within 15 minutes during examination by doctor, Lokesh succumbed to injuries. This fact and statement of witnesses of Ex. P-8 shows that while recording dying declaration, condition of Lokesh was very much serious, but theses witnesses have denied the suggestion that Lokesh was not fit to make dying declaration, Dr. R.R. Dhurve (P.W. 13) has also certified this fact. In such a situation only because it has been recorded by the police, it cannot be held inadmissible.

In the State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav [2022 SCC Online SC 1494], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no rule to the effect that a dying declaration is inadmissible when it is recorded by a police officer instead of a Magistrate or it was not in question and answer form. Para 45, 47 and 48 read as under :-

“45. There is no rule to the effect that a dying declaration is inadmissible when it is recorded by a police officer instead of a Magistrate. (State of Karnataka v. Shariff [(2003)2 SCC 473]. Although a dying declaration ought to ideally be recorded by a Magistrate if possible, it cannot be said that dying declarations recorded by police personnel are inadmissible for that reason alone. The issue of whether a dying declaration recorded by the police is admissible must be decided after considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

The fact that the dying declaration is not in the form of questions and answers does not impact either its admissibility or its probative value, as held in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1998) 4 SCC 517] :

“9. … Generally, the dying declaration ought to be recorded in the form of questions and answers but if a dying declaration is not elaborate but consists of only a few sentences and is in the actual words of the maker the mere fact that it is not in question-answer form cannot be a ground against its acceptability or reliability.”

Indeed, as recognized by this Court in Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [(2012) 12 SCC 120] it may not always be possible to record dying declarations in the form of questions and answers:

“19. Insofar as the case before us is concerned, we may only note that there is no format prescribed for recording a dying declaration. Indeed, no such format can be prescribed. Therefore, it is not obligatory that a dying declaration should be recorded in a question-answer form. There may be occasions when it is possible to do so and others when it may not be possible to do so either because of the prevailing situation or because of the pain and agony that the victim might be suffering at that point of time.”

Hence submission made by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to dying declaration is also not sustainable.

On the basis of memorandum statement Ex. P-9 of the appellant, Investigating Officer Yadumani Sidar (P.W. 12) has seized axe and knife vide seizure memo Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-11 from the place shown by the appellant on very next day of the incident. He also seized T shirt of appellant which he was wearing vide Ex. P-12. Hariram (P.W. 3) and En Singh (P.W. 9) who are witnesses of aforesaid memorandum statement and seizure have supported the same. In FSL report Ex. P-22-B blood stains have been reported to be found not only in the soil collected from the place of occurrence and clothes of the deceased but it has also been reported that blood stains were also found in the seized articles i.e. axe, knife and T shirt of the deceased. Thus, these circumstances also support the statement of eye-witness Sandhya (P.W. 4) and other witnesses that appellant is the perpetrator of the crime.

Evidence of Sahdev (P.W. 1 ) and Sandhya (P.W. 4) shows dispute between them with the appellant, prior to the incident, but nothing has been elicited in the statement of independent witnesses to show that they have any interest or grooves to implicate appellant in such heinous crime of double murder.

During course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out various contradiction/omissions in deposition of witnesses and their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which were considered by us but those contradictions are minor and not sufficient to discredit testimony of the witnesses.

In the case of Rajendra alias Rajappa and ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2021) 6 SCC 178], Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated its earlier view that, only contradiction in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit testimony of witnesses. Para 18 of the said judgment reads thus :-

“18. This Court in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 8 SCC 457], has considered the minor contradictions in the testimony, while appreciating the evidence in criminal trial. It is held in the said judgment that only contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Relevant portion of para 42 of the judgment reads as under :

“42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness.”

Appellant has examined 3 defence witnesses namely Kamlesh Dhurve (DW 1), Sunil Kumar (DW 2) and Santram (P.W. 3), who have stated that on the date of incident at about 6.30 pm, the appellant had gone for treatment of his Daughter from the doctor of village Khadkhadi, thereby they want to say that at the time of incident, appellant was not present at the spot, but to prove their statements, neither any medical document of his daughter has been filed and proved by the appellant nor he has examined said doctor of village Khadkhadi who had examined his daughter. Hence only on the basis of such vague and baseless statement, plea of alibi cannot be accepted.

Motive of causing murder of both the deceased has also been proved by the prosecution in the instant case as there was not only property dispute between the appellant and family of the deceased, but the appellant was also doubting Manbai about playing witchcraft by her and due to which, his (appellant’s) father, mother had died and his wife’s fetus was also diminished and while assaulting both the deceased also the appellant was uttering such facts.

In view of above discussion, we find that the impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, we do not find any substance in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentences imposed by the learned trial Court upon the appellant vide impugned judgment are affirmed.