Deokumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 21.01.2015, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, in Sessions Trial No.191/2014, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Sections 449 & 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.

CONVICTION

SENTENCE

U/s. 449 of I.P.C.

Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 2 months

U/s. 302 of I.P.C.

Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment for 2 months.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.07.2014 at about 12:00 a.m. at village Badesar, Police Station- Palmgarh, appellant herein unauthorizedly tress-passed into the house of his aunt Anjani Bai (now deceased) and committed her murder; thereby the offences have been committed. Further case of the prosecution is that appellant herein assaulted the deceased by Bricks & Griddle, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died, which was witnessed by Thanda Bai (PW-1) who reported the matter to the Police Station and Dehati Nalisi was registered vide Ex.P-14 and thereafter, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-2 and dead body was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. R.D.Gupta (PW-9), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-9, in which cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest because of asphyxia as a result of strangulation and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-3, Griddle was seized vide Ex.P-4, which was sent for examination to FSL, but FSL report was not brought on record. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Sections 449 & 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred.

Mr. K.S.Kurre, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He further submits that there was previous enmity between the appellant and Thanda Bai (PW-1), which is established from the statement of Thanda Bai (PW-1) and Devram, husband of the deceased, has not been examined and further on the seized article, no human blood has been found; as such, prosecution case is doubtful and therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. He submits that Thanda Bai (PW-1) who is eye-witness has immediately informed the matter to Puniram (PW-4), who has also supported the case of the prosecution and cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest due to strangulation and appellant has caused 12 injuries to the body of deceased, as such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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

The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Anjani Bai was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report Ex.P-9 proved by Dr. R.D.Gupta (PW-9), which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

Now, the next question for consideration is, whether the appellant is the author of the crime ?

Case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. Thanda Bai (PW-1), who is mother-in-law of the deceased, has clearly stated that she had seen that appellant entered into the house and on the date of offence, she along-with her daughter-in-law were watching T.V. and in meanwhile, she has gone to the house of her brother-in-law Maniram for bringing water-bottle and when she came back, she saw that door was closed and in open area of the door, she witnessed that appellant had assaulted her daughter-in-law by Bricks & Griddle and thereafter, when she cried, the appellant absconded from the spot. She has been subjected to cross-examination, but only it has been brought that there was some dispute in between the appellant and Thanda Bai (PW-1), but she refuted that on account of previous dispute, she has falsely implicated the appellant herein. Immediately after the incident, Thanda Bai (PW-1) informed the matter to Puniram (PW-4) and Puniram (PW-4) has also stated that he was informed by Thanda Bai (PW-1) that appellant assaulted her daughter-in-law Anjani Bai and absconded. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, weapon of offence i.e. Griddle has been recovered. Doctor has also been examined, who has clearly proved that deceased had suffered 12 injuries and cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest because of asphyxia as a result of strangulation and death was homicidal in nature. As such, after hearing learned counsel for the appellant at length and after going through the records, we find no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses and more particularly the statement of Thanda Bai (PW-1), which inspires confidence and in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant has not offered explanation and in the memorandum statement, Griddle has been seized, by which injuries have been caused.

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant under Sections 449 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and therefore we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed.