Leduram Lakda 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 30.07.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sessions Bench Jashpur, in Sessions Trial No.20/2016, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, 5 months additional rigorous imprisonment.

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 28.01.2016 in between 6 to 8 p.m. at village Maraguda Pahad in Forest of Gashtidand, Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur, the appellant assaulted his wife Birjhi Bai (now deceased) by hand & fist and inserted sugarcane in her private part, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby the offence has been committed. Further case of the prosecution is that on 28.01.2016, appellant and his wife along-with their children had gone to Champa Bazaar at village Amatpani and while coming back to his village, on suspecting the character of his pregnant wife, appellant assaulted her by hand & fist and by stone and inserted sugarcane in her private part, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died. The appellant himself has reported the matter to the police and Rojnamcha-sanha was recorded on 29.01.2016, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-18, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-19, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and dead body of deceased Birjhi Bai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. C.D. Bakhla (PW-3), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-9, according to which, cause of death was stated to be hemorrhagic shock due to rupture of uterus and death was homicidal in nature. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, in which, on the cloths of appellant and other articles also, blood has been found. 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 9 witnesses and exhibited 32 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 Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that there is no eye-witness account to the incident and the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of very weak circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant by recording a finding, which is perverse to the record and, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

On the other hand, Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, would submit that while returning from the market, appellant killed his wife and throughout the night, he was keeping guard of the dead body and then in the morning, he himself lodged the report regarding commission of murder of his wife. It is also argued that at the time of murder, the deceased was carrying pregnancy of 8 months. Moreover, the appellant also made extra-judicial confession before Chhandu Ram (PW-1) and before other villagers. It is further argued that before committing the murder of the deceased, appellant inserted sugarcane in the private part of deceased, which reflects the brutality of the offence and therefore the conviction of appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is well merited and the 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 Birjhi 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. C.D. Bakhla (PW-3), according to which, cause of death was stated to be hemorrhagic shock due to rupture of uterus and death was homicidal in nature, 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 is, whether the appellant is the author of the crime, which the trial Court has answered in affirmative relying upon the statement of Chhandu Ram (PW-1), who is uncle of the deceased. He has clearly stated that the appellant along with his niece Birjhi Bai had gone to Champa Bazaar, but did not come back in the night and in the morning, the police informed that Birjhi Bai has died. Then they immediately reached to the spot and found the dead body of his niece Birjhi Bai and blood was found spread therein and sugarcane was also found inserted in the private part of the deceased and appellant was sitting therein. On being asked, appellant informed that he has killed his wife and he has given extra-judicial confession to him that he has killed his wife without disclosing the reason.

Sukri Bai (PW-2) is the mother of the deceased. She has stated that the appellant had taken his wife to the market, but he did not come back and killed her daughter and at that time, she was pregnant.

Dr. C.D. Bakhla (PW-3), who has conducted the post-mortem, has been examined and he stated that he has found seven injuries on the body of the deceased and also found ruptured wound in vagina. He also stated at para 5 that in uterus, 8 months dead child was present and vagina was completely ruptured and was stained with blood.

Furthermore, Amasi Bai (PW-4), who also reached to the spot after being informed, has stated that they found number of injuries on the body of the deceased. In the FSL report Ex.P-30, on Barmuda & T-shirt along-with other seized articles, blood has been found.

Since the appellant and deceased both have left the house and appellant left the company of deceased at Champa Bazaar and did not come back, he was required to explain in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., as to when he departed the company of his wife, which he failed to explain.

In that view of the matter, the trial Court taking into consideration the statement of the prosecution witnesses that the appellant and deceased both were seen together lastly and thereafter the dead body of deceased was found and appellant was present on the spot and he did not explain as to how his wife suffered injuries and died and on seized cloths, blood has been found and blood was also found on sugarcane in FSL report Ex.P-30, which was inserted in the body of the deceased, the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant is the author of crime, which in our opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and therefore the appeal sans merit, it deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.