Gita Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC emanates from the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18/07/2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 55/2011 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/­, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for one year.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20/09/2011 at about 10:00 AM at village Bhatlikhurd, P.S. Jarhagaon, the appellant herein assaulted one Suresh Sahu S/o Lalji Sahu, aged about 13 years, by an axe due to which he suffered greivous injuries on his head and neck and died instantaneously and the appellant thereby, committed the aforesaid offence.

Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Lalji Sahu (P.W.­1), father of deceased Suresh Sahu, had illicit relationship with the wife of the appellant and he had taken her to Agra and resided there as husband and wife and on the that premise, on the fateful day of 20/09/2011 at about 10:00 AM, Suresh Sahu was going to school along with two other students namely Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.­9) and as soon as they reached the main road outside of the village near the field of Gore Sahu, the appellant, who was hiding behind a mango tree, came out armed with an axe and assaulted Suresh Sahu on his neck and head by which he suffered grievous injuries in the vital part of the body and died instantaneously and thereafter, the appellant absconded immediately. The eye­witnesses to the incident namely Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.­9) informed about the incident to Ramji Sahu (P.W.­7) who registered merg intimation vide (Ex. P/12) and thereafter lodged FIR against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC vide Ex. P/13. Inquest was conducted vide Ex. P/5 and summons were issued to the witnesses vide Ex. P/6 and thereafter, the dead body of deceased Suresh Sahu was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Suresh Ratre (Ex. P/12). The postmortem report has been filed as Ex. P/3 in which cause of death has been recorded as coma due to head injury and nature of death has been recorded as homidical. Pursuant thereof, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex. P/1 and the broken bait of the axe was seized vide Ex. P/2. From the spot, plain soil as well as blood stained soil, broken axe and cycle of Suresh Sahu have been seized vide Ex. P/8 and P/9 and the seized articles were sent for chemical examination but no FSL report has been brought on record. After recording the statements of the witnesses and after due investigation, the appellant/accused was charge­sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Session for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and brought into record 17 documents. Statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied guilt but examined none in his defence.

Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, finding the death of deceased Suresh Sahu to be homicidal in nature and further finding the appellant to be the author of the crime relying upon the testimony of eye witnesses Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.­9) and recovery of axe pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, proceeded to convict him for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid which has been called in question by way of this appeal.

Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC relying upon the testimony of Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.­9) as they have not witnessed the incident and it is a case of false implication as the father of Suresh Sahu namely Lalji Sahu (P.W.­1) had an illicit relationship with the wife of the appellant, as such, the impugned judgment be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

Per Contra, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel, would submit that appellant had strong motive to murder Suresh Sahu, son of Lalji Sahu (P.W.­1) as Lalji Sahu (P.W.­1) had an illicit relationship with his wife and the incident has been witnessed by two students namely Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.­9) who were going to the school with the deceased while the appellant committed his murder and moreover, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex. P/1, broken axe as well as its wooden bait has also been seized vide Ex. P/2 and P/8, 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 would be whether the death of deceased Suresh Sahu was homicidal in nature ?

Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding with regard to this question on the basis of postmortem report (Ex. P/3) wherein Dr. Suresh Ratre (P.W.­3), who has conducted postmortem, has clearly stated that the cause of death is coma due to head injury and the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Moreover, the fact that the death of deceased Suresh Sahu was homicidal in nature has also not been seriously disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. As such, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the postmortem report (Ex. P/3) as well as going through the evidence of Dr. Suresh Ratre (P.W.­3), we are satisfied that learned trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased Suresh Sahu to be homicidal in nature. We hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court.

Now, the question for consideration is whether the appellant is the author of the crime and whether the trial Court has rightly convicted him for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC ?

First of all, learned trial Court has held that appellant had strong motive to cause the death of Suresh Sahu, son of Lalji Sahu (P.W.­1). Admittedly, it has been proved by Lalji Sahu (P.W.­1) as well as Bhuwan Lal (P.W.­6) that father of the deceased, Lalji Sahu (P.W.­1) had kept the wife of the appellant and he took her to Agra and resided there like a husband and wife on account of which the appellant was holding a grudge by which he intended to cause the death of the deceased. The entire evidence on record would show that on the fateful day, deceased Suresh Sahu was going to school along with two other students namely Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.­9) and when they reached the main road outside of the village near the field of Gore Sahu, the appellant, who was hiding behind a mango tree, attacked the deceased with an axe and made 6­7 blows on his head as well as neck due to which he suffered grievous injuries and as opined by Dr. Suresh Ratre (P.W.­ 3), due to coma because of head injury, he died on the spot.

Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8), aged about 13 years, has clearly stated in his statement before the Court that he and Lalit Sahu (P.W.­8) were going to school along with the deceased on the fateful day on their bicycles. He was riding alone on his bicycle whereas deceased Suresh Sahu and Lalit Sahu (P.W.­9) were riding another bicycle. When they reached near the field of Gorelal, the appellant who had been hiding behind a mango tree, came out with an axe and caused 8­9 blows on the head of the deceased. While hitting the deceased, the bait of the axe had also been broken by the appellant. The deceased suffered grievous injuries and fell on the ground and Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8) ran to his home and informed about the incident to his father Ramji Sahu (P.W.­7). In his cross­examination, he has also stated Lalji Sahu (P.W.­1) has kept the wife of the appellant. Similarly, Lalit Sahu (P.W.­9) has supported the statement of Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8) and though these two witnesses have been subjected to cross­examination to some extent but nothing has been brought out to prove that they have not seen the appellant causing the death of deceased Suresh Sahu. As such, it is firmly established from the testimony of Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.­9) that it is the appellant who is the author of the crime.

Moreover, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex. P/1, at first broken bait of the axe has been seized vide Ex. P/2 and thereafter, recovery of the axe (tangi) has also been made vide Ex. P/8 and though memorandum witness Kishor Kumar (P.W.­2) has not supported the case of the prosecution, but the Investigating Officer namely B. Kujur (P.W.­10) has proved the same. Therefore, from the testimony of eye witnesses Dilharan Sahu (P.W.­8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.­9) as well as from the memorandum and seizure, it has been proved that appellant is indeed the author of the crime. As such, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of ocular as well as circumstantial evidence and learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Accordingly, this criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.