Jaglal Manjhi, vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Singh Chandel, J

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.03.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.102/2014 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, C.G., by which the appellant stands convicted & sentenced as under:-

Conviction

Sentence

Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code

Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional rigorous imprisonment for five months

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 17.01.2014 in between 2:00 pm to 7:00 pm, appellant, due to previous enmity with Ghasiya Ram Rathiya (hereinafter called as 'deceased) with regard to possession of the agricultural field, assaulted the deceased with Tangi, by which deceased sustained grievous injuries over his body and died. Further case of the prosecution is that PW-2 Mahettar Ram, son of the deceased, reported the matter to the Police Station stating that the dead body of his father-deceased was found by him as well as the villagers near the disputed land. On the report of PW-2 Mahettar Ram, merg intimation Ex.P-1 was recorded, FIR Ex.P-2 was registered against the unknown person and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-24. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex.P-13 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-6 Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sidar, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-11. According to postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased was coma due to head and posto back injury caused by hard and sharp heavy object. During investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded and it was found that the said incident was witnessed by PW-5 Satturam Rathiya, pursuant to which appellant was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-8 consequent to which blood stained tangi and clothes of the appellant were seized vide Exs.P-8 & P-9 respectively. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination but no FSL report has been brought on record.

After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence.

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents i.e. Exs.P-1 to P-24. In his defence, he has examined none and not exhibited any documents.

The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced as above against which the present appeal has been preferred.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offence as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that FIR has been lodged against an unknown person whereas PW-5 Satturam Rathiya has stated that he has seen the incident but his statement is not reliable as at the time of incident, he was working in the nursery which is far away from the place of occurrence. Therefore, the statement of PW-5 Satturam Rathiya is suspicious. He would also submit that apart from the statement of PW-5 Satturam Rathiya, no other evidence is available on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has brought home the offence against the appellant and has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record minutely.

The first question for consideration would be, whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P-11) proved by Dr. Chandra Shekhar Sidar (PW-6), which is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding.

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

Case of the prosecution is based on the sole testimony of PW-5 Satturam Rathiya. In his statement before the Court, PW-5 Satturam Rathiya has stated that at the time of incident, at about 3:00 pm, he went to the Jungle for taking Datun where he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with Tangi. He further submits that after seeing the incident, due to fear, he fled away from there and did not inform the incident to anyone. During cross-examination in para 4, he has categorically stated that the said incident was witnessed by him from the road which is 50 to 100 meters away from the place of incident. This witness (PW-5) has been subjected to cross-examination by the defence but he remained firm while supporting the case of the prosecution and nothing has come out from him to hold that there was any previous enmity between the appellant and this witness (PW-5) and that he is falsely implicating the appellant. As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-5 Satturam Rathiya.

Apart from this, during the course of investigation, pursuant to the disclosure statement of appellant (Ex.P-8), blood stained tangi and clothes of the appellant were seized from the possession of the appellant vide Exs.P-9 & P-10, which has been duly proved by PW-4 Rupram Patel i.e. independent witness. Further, PW-2 Mahettar Ram, son of the deceased, has also stated in his deposition that there was previous enmity between the appellant and deceased with regard to possession of the agricultural field.

On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that there was previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased with regard to possession of the agricultural field. Further, from the evidence of PW-5 Satturam Rathiya, it is established that on the date of incident, appellant assaulted the deceased with tangi, as a result of which, deceased suffered grievous injuries over his body resulting into his death and more particularly, the blood stained tangi and clothes have also been recovered from the possession of the appellant. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.