Heeraram Satnami vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pritinker Diwaker, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26th of July, 2007 passed in Session Trial No. 38/2007 by the Second Additional Session Judge, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of R.I. for 5 years. The facts, briefly stated, are as under-

Deceased- Ramesh Kumar Dhruw was Chowkidar in Forest Department. He had caught cattle of the appellant grazing in reserve forest area and had sent them to concerned forest depot. The allegations are that when the deceased was going to the bus-stand, the appellant came on the way and attacked over him by a tangia. The deceased received multiple serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The incident took place at about 7.30 a.m. on 1.11.2006. It was witnessed by Chaindas (PW-7), Mohit Sahu (PW-8) and Keshru (PW-9). Son of the deceased namely Jageshwar Prasad (PW-6) lodged merg intimation (Ex.-P/12), based on which the First Information Report (Ex.-P/13) was recorded. The Investigation Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/1) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/2) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem to Government Hospital, Palari. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Mamta Thakur (PW-11). Following injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased:-

(i) Incised wound below the chin;

(ii) Incised would of 21/2 inch x 3 inch just below injury no. (i);

(iii) Incised would of 11/2 inch x 2 inch on the right side of injury no. (i);

(iv) Incised wound of 2 inch x 11/2 inch over left side of chest;

(v) Incised wound of 21/2 inch, 1 cm deep on the middle of the skull;

(vi) Another incised wound of 21/2 inch x 1/2 to 1 cm deep transversely placed at the right side of injury no. (v);

(vii) Incised wound of 31/2 inch x 1/2 cm on the back portion of skull;

(viii) Incised wound over the lower portion of skull and upper portion of neck;

(ix) Trachea was completely cut. Carotid and jugular vessels of the neck were also cut. Esophagus was completely cut.

All the injuries were ante-mortem caused by sharp edged object. It was opined that the cause of death was asphyxia and hypertonic shock due to excessive hemorrhage because of incision of carotid and jugular vessels with trachea and esophagus. The post-mortem report is Ex.-P/18.

In further investigation, the appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex.-P/14) u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and tangia was seized at his instance vide seizure memo Ex.-P/15. Other documents (Ex.-P/7 & P/8) of the Forest Department were also seized relating to the seizure and deposit of the cattle of the appellant in depot Kanjihouse for which POR No. 1754/17 was recorded.

The seized articles, including tangia and clothes of the appellant, were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), Raipur, from where, a report was received. According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on all the articles including the tangia seized at the instance of the appellant. Though the articles were sent for Serologist Examination, the Serologist report could not be filed.

The case of the prosecution was based on eye-witness account of Chaindas (PW-7), Mohit Sahu (PW-8) & Keshru (PW-9).

The learned Session Judge relied on the testimonies of the above eyewitnesses and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.

Mr. Santosh Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the eye-witnesses were not reliable; they were unnatural witnesses and they had not seen the incident, therefore, the conviction based on their testimonies cannot be sustained.

On the other hand, Mr. V.K. Shrivastava, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Session Court.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case.

Chaindas (PW-7) deposed that on the fateful day at about 7.30 a.m., he had gone for plucking datoon. He saw the appellant and the deceased. The appellant was assaulting the deceased by tangia. He had seen the incident from a distance of 100 feet. The incident occurred on Lavan-Khardora public way. He had seen the appellant giving 3-4 tangia blows to the deceased. The deceased had received multiple injuries and had fell down, in fact he had died.

Mohit Sahu (PW-8) is an other eye-witness. He deposed that the deceased was working as Chowkidar in Forest Department. On the fateful day, he was present at the place of occurrence. He was taking tea on a tea-stall near the place of occurrence. Keshru (PW-9) was also present with him. At that time, they saw that the deceased was coming from the side of village Rohasi. When he was at a distance of 50 meters, the appellant also came there. He was armed with a tangia. The appellant talked with the deceased and attacked over the deceased by tangia. The deceased received injuries on his skull and fell down on the way. Thereafter the appellant gave tangia blows on the neck of the deceased. The appellant then ran towards them. They became frightened. The appellant then ran towards the gali.

Keshru (PW-9) deposed that on the fateful day, he was taking tea along with Mohit Sahu (PW-8) and Kalaram. They had seen that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by tangia. The incident took place at a distance of 50 feet from tea-stall. It had taken place on the public way. The appellant had given 2 tangia blows to the deceased. The deceased had received injuries over his neck and has died.

Though the above eye-witnesses have been cross-examined at length by the defence, but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance, on which, either their testimonies may be discarded or it may be said that they were falsely implicating the appellant in crime in question. On appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses, we-find that their evidence is consistent on the point that it was the appellant who attacked over the deceased by tangia and gave repeated blows on the skull and neck of the deceased. The incident took place at 7.30 a.m. It took place on a public way in the village near a tea-stall. Chaindas (PW-7) and Mohit Sahu (PW-8) were also working as Chowkidar in Forest Department. The deceased was their co-worker. They were fully acquainted with the appellant and the deceased. Therefore, there is no question of mistaken identity. Keshru (PW-9) also claims that the deceased and the appellant were well known to him. Nothing has been brought in the cross-examination of these witnesses so as to show that they could not identify the appellant or the deceased. The presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence appears to be natural and they appear to be natural witnesses. We have perused their entire evidence which is clear on all aspects. In fact it was a broad-day-light murder in the vicinity of the village at a public place where a tea-stall was also there, and was witnessed by the above witnesses. Nothing has been brought on record to show that either these witnesses were inimical to the appellant or they had some reason to conceal the name of actual culprit and falsely implicate the appellant. On appreciation of the entire evidence of these 3 witnesses, we are satisfied that the learned Session Judge was fully justified in relying on the testimonies of these witnesses.

The version of the eye-witnesses is further corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.-P/18) and version of Autopsy Surgeon, Dr. Mamta Thakur (PW-11), who found above injuries on the person of the deceased and that Injuries could have been caused by sharp edged weapon like tangia. The number and nature of the injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased and the part of the body chosen for causing such injuries and the weapon used with the force applied by him, would further show that the appellant had intention to commit murder of the deceased. We are of the view that the Session Judge was fully justified in holding that for all above reasons the appellant was liable for punishment u/s. 302 IPC. On the above discussion, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.