Heera Sai and Another vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh)

Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.1.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No. 36/1994. By the impugned judgment, accused persons/appellants Heera Sai and Ranjit have been convicted u/s 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: On 7.9.1992, at about 4 p.m., Richak (deceased) was cleaning leather (skin) near his house. At that time, appellant Heera Sai was abusing his wife. The deceased prevented appellant Heera Sai from abusing. On this account, appellant Heera Sai assaulted the deceased with a Lathi on the head. Appellant Heera Sai had also come there. He also assaulted the deceased the deceased sustained injuries on the head and fell down. Blood oozed out of the nose and mouth of the deceased. Subhagiyabai (PW4), wife of the deceased shouted. Having heard her shout, Bhagwan (PW1), Dharmjit (PW2), Sukhlal (PW6) reached there. The appellants fled from there. Bhagwan (PW1) lodged First Information Report (Ex. P1) and Merg Intimation (Ex. P13) was also recorded. The Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex. P4) to Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex. P5) on the body of the deceased. Dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination to Primary Health Centre, Sonhat vide Ex. P14. Post mortem examination was conducted by Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW10), who gave his report (Ex. P19), in which he opined that cause of death of the deceased was excessive hemorrhage due to fracture of skull and it was homicidal in nature.

In further investigation, plain earth and blood stained earth were seized vide Ex. P8. Memorandum statement (Ex. P2) of appellant Ranjit was recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act on 9.9.1992 and at his instance, a Danda was seized vide Ex. P3. Memorandum statement of appellant Heera Sai was recorded vide Ex. P6 and at his instance, apiece of wood was seized vide Ex. P7. Shirt of the appellant Heera Sai was also seized vide Ex. P9. Spot-Map (Ex. P12) was prepared by Patwari Dayashankar Shandilya. (PW8). The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar vide Ex. P17 and a report Ex. P18 was received. In the FSL report (Ex. P-18), article A blood stained soil, article E Kathari, article F petticoat and article G Towel were found stained with blood.

After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Ambikapur, from where it was received on transfer by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellants argued that there was no any independent eyewitness. Subhagiyabai (PW4) is widow of the deceased and Bhagwan (PW1) is son of the deceased. Bhagwan (PW1), Dharmjit (PW2) and Sukhlal (PW6) did not witness the incident. The evidence of Subhagiyabai (PW4) is full of contradictions. She is highly interested witness. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants cannot be based on the sole-testimony of Subhagiyabai (PW4).

On the contrary, Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the impugned judgment as also the record of the sessions case with utmost circumspection. The conviction of the accused/appellant u/s 304 Part II, IPC is based on the testimonies of Subhagiyabai (PW4), Bhagwan (PW1) and Sukhlal (PW6).

It is not disputed that Subhagiyabai (PW4) is widow of the deceased and Bhagwan (PW1) is son of the deceased and they are deceased''s nearest relatives. Merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistence and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the Courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care.

Subhagiyabai (PW4) deposed that on the fateful day, at about 4 p.m., she and her husband (the deceased) were washing leather (skin) near their house under a Bargad tree. At that time, appellant Heera Sai was abusing his wife. The deceased prevented appellant Heera Sai from abusing. On that account, appellant Heera Sai assaulted the deceased with a lathi on the head. Appellant Ranjit had also come there. He also assaulted the deceased. Her husband (the deceased) fell down and sustained injuries on the head and back. She shouted. Having heard her shout, Bhagwan (PW1), Dharmjit (PW2), Sukhlal (PW6), one Munnalal, one Antu and one Ramkumar reached mere. The appellants went near their house.

Bhagwan (PW1) deposed that on screaming of his mother Subhagiyabai (PW4), he, running, came from the agricultural field to his house. He saw that the appellants were fleeing after committing Marpeet with Danda. Sukhlal (PW6) deposed that on hearing shout near the houses of appellant Ranjit and deceased Richak, he went there. He was told there by Subhagiyabai (PW4) that appellant Heera Sai had assaulted the deceased. He further deposed that at that time, the appellants were standing in front of the door of their house and appellant Heera Sai was having a Danda in his hands and appellant Ranjit was having an umbrella in his hands.

The incident took place on 7.9.1992 at about 4 p.m. and FIR (Ex. P1) was lodged on 7.9.1992 at about 6 p.m., which was within two hours of the incident. The distance between Police Station, Sonhat and Village Keshgawan is 10 kilometres. It appears that the FIR (Ex. P1) was lodged promptly. In the FIR (Ex. P1), Bhagwan (PW1) has lodged the report to the effect that Richak was washing leather (skin) near his house. Appellant Heera Sai was abusing his wife. The deceased prevented him from abusing. On this, appellant Heera Sai assaulted the deceased with a Danda and appellant Ranjit had also come there and he also assaulted the deceased with a Danda. His mother Subhagiyabai (PW4) shouted. Having heard her shout, Bhagwan (PW1), Dharmjit (PW2), Sukhlal (PW6) and one Antu reached there. The appellants fled from there.

Subhagiyabai (PW4) narrated the incident to Bhagwan (PW). Sukhlal (PW6) and Dharmjit (PW2) immediately. Bhagwan (PW1) and Sukhlal (PW6) corroborated the evidence of Subhagiyabai (PW4). Since the FIR (Ex. P1) was lodged promptly and it contains names of the accused persons/appellants as assailants, therefore, the evidence of Subhagiyabai (PW4) appears to be trustworthy.

Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW10) deposed that on post mortem examination of dead body of the deceased he found fracture on left frontal bone. He deposed that cause of death of the deceased was excessive hemorrhage due to fracture of skull and it was homicidal in nature.

The evidence of Subhagiyabai (PW4) is well corroborated by medical evidence. There is no material on record to show that Subhagiyabai (PW4) had any motive to implicate the appellants falsely.

I have perused the evidence of Subhagiyabai (PW4) with utmost circumspection. Her evidence is cogent and trustworthy and duly corroborated by the medical evidence.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court that it was none else but the appellants who inflicted injuries on the skull of the deceased with the lathi and the deceased died on account of the injuries caused by them. Consequently, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants are affirmed. The appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.