Chunwada Kachhi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 05.09.1995 passed in Sessions Trial No.155/1993. The trial Court held the appellant

guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life imprisonment.

Prosecution case in brief is that there was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased about distribution of mangoes, for which, the

deceased had lodged a report at the police station against the appellant one day before the incident. When the deceased was sleeping in the house,

the appellant entered the house in the night and inflicted blows by gadasa (chopper). Neck of the deceased was chopped of. The incident was

witnessed by the wife of the deceased. Father of the deceased namely Ram Kripal lodged report at the police station. On the report, a FIR was

registered at the police station. Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt and

pleaded innocence. The trial Court, after trial, held the appellant guilty for commission of offence and awarded sentence as mentioned above in the

judgment.

Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that the trial Court committed error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. There in

no independent eye witness of the incident.

Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant and the trial Court has rightly

convicted the appellant and awarded proper sentence.

PW-7 Ramkali, is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that we were sleeping in the courtyard (angan) of the house. There were three cots in

the courtyard. On one cot, my husband and my 2nd son were sleeping; on the second cot, my younger daughter and elder son were sleeping and

on the third cot, I and my youngest son were sleeping. At around 3 O,clock in the night, I heard a sound and awoke. I had seen that the appellant

had inflicted blow of gandasa on the neck of my husband and his neck was chopped of. I had seen the appellant running away from the spot

alongwith the gadasa. I cried. A dispute had taken place between the appellant and my husband in regard to mangoes one day before the incident.

My husband and my father in law lodged a report at the police station about the said incident. On this account, the appellant had killed my

husband. In her cross-examination she deposed that there was sufficient light in the courtyard of the house to witness the incident.

PW-8 Ram Nivas is the son of the deceased. He was also sleeping, at the time of incident, alongwith the family members. He deposed that

there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased on account of distribution of mangoes because the appellant had plucked all the

mangoes from the mango tree, which was of our ownership. My father lodged a report at the police station. On this account, the appellant had

killed my father. I had seen the appellant running away from the spot with gadasa. He further deposed that I further noticed that neck of my father

was chopped of.

PW-1 Gorelal deposed that the appellant and the deceased were residents of the same village. After hearing cry from the house of the

deceased, I went to the house of the deceased. I noticed that deceased was laying dead and his neck was chopped of. Other villagers came on the

spot. Police prepared panchnama of dead body, which is Ex.P1 and I signed the same. Police seized plain earth, red earth and cord of the cot

from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P2 and I signed the same. The appellant was called for interrogation and he told before me that he had killed

the deceased by gadasa. Ex.P3 is memorandum of the appellant and I signed the same. From the house of the appellant, a gadasa was seized and

his baniyan (vest) and underwear were also seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.P4 and I signed the same. The appellant was arrested by

arrest memo Ex.P5 and I signed the same.

PW-2 Rajendra Prasad Verma is Patwari. He deposed that I prepared spot map Ex.P4 and signed the same. PW-3 Ram Khelawan is a

villager. He verified the fact that there was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased in regard to plucking of mangoes. A panchayat was

convened in the village and I attended the panchayat. PW-4 Kallu deposed that after hearing cry of the wife of the deceased, I reached on the spot

and noticed that the deceased was laying dead. PW-5 Ramkripal is the father of the deceased. He deposed that when I reached the house, I heard

cry of the wife of the deceased. She was crying that the appellant had killed the deceased. On day before the incident, I lodged a report against the

appellant about plucking of mangoes. I had also called panchayat of the village to solve the dispute. I lodged the report Ex.P10 and signed the

same. Police prepared spot map Ex.P13 and I signed the same. PW-9 Chhedilal is also a villager. He deposed that before me, a panchayat of the

village was held.

PW-6 Dr. M.N. Pandey deposed that I had performed autopsy of the deceased and noticed following injuries on the person of the deceased:

A. One incised wound 17 CM X 5 CM X 6 CM on the neck of the deceased. Skin, tissues, trachea, blood vessels, alimentary canal were cut.

B. One incised wound 3 CM X 2 CM on left thumb.

C. One Incised wound 5 CM X 2 CM, bone deep on left hand.

D. Index finger was cut.

E. One incised wound 5 CM X 1/2 CM X 1/4 CM on the middle finger of left hand.

The deceased died due to the injuries suffered by him on the neck. The injuries were sufficient for death. The injuries were caused by hard and

sharp edged weapon.

PW-10 Bharat Singh Chouhan is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that I conducted investigation of the case. Complainant Ram Kripal

lodged the report at the police station, which is Ex.P10, I authored the report and signed the same. I recorded merg intimation Ex.P11 and signed

the same. I prepared spot map Ex.P13 and signed the same. I seized plain earth, read earth and some cloths from the spot vide seizure memo

Ex.P2 and signed the same. Thereafter, I recorded statements of the witnesses Gorelal, Ram Khelawan, Keshav Prasad Kushwaha, Chhedilal

Kushwaha, Ganesh Prasad, Ram Nivas, Jhalla Choudhary, Ram Kripal Kushwaha, Ramkali and Ram Nivas. On the memorandum Ex.P3 of the

appellant, a gadasa was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P4. I singed the same. The accused was arrested on 17.06.1993 vide arrest memo Ex.P5. I

signed the same. Seized articles were sent to FSL.

The report is Ex.P10. It was lodged by Ram Kripal at around 9 O''clock in the morning on 16.06.1993. The incident had happened in the

night on the same date. In the report, name of the appellant has been mentioned. It is mentioned that he had killed the deceased. PW-7 Ramkali is

the wife of the deceased. She is an eye witness. She was sleeping in the courtyard at the time of incident. It is well settled principle of law that

evidence of related witness could be relied on if it inspires confidence of the Court. In the present case, the deceased was sleeping in the house.

The appellant entered in the house. Naturally, there cannot be any independent witness of the incident. Hence, the evidence of PW-7 is reliable.

PW-8 Ram Nivas is the son of the deceased. He was also sleeping in the same courtyard. He deposed that he had seen the appellant running

away from the spot alongwith gadasa. The report was lodged promptly within a short period after happening of the incident. In the FIR, the name

of the appellant has been mentioned. The appellant had illwill against the deceased because the deceased and his father had lodged a report against

the appellant one day before the incident. From the possession of the appellant, a gadasa was seized. PW-1 is the independent witness who

verified the fact of memorandum and seizure of gadasa from the possession of the appellant. Blood stained cloths were also seized from the

possession of the appellant. FSL report is Ex.P23. As per FSL report, blood was found on Ex. A (red earth), Ex.C (piece of cord of the cot),

Ex.D (piece of the quilt), Ex.E1 (baniyan of the appellant), Ex.E2 (underwear of the appellant) and Ex.F (gadasa). The doctor who performed

autopsy of the deceased verified the fact that the deceased received injuries, which were caused by hard and sharp edged weapon, which could be

caused by gadasa. The appellant entered in the house of the deceased in the night, he was armed with a deadly weapon, he had inflicted number of

blows on the person of the deceased, the neck of the deceased was chopped of, hence, there was intention and motive to kill the deceased. In our

opinion, the trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded a proper

sentence.

Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby canceled. He

is directed to surrender before the trial Court to suffer the remaining jail sentence.

A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for necessary action.