Poshanlal Verma vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.11.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 139 of 2015 by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for 06 months (both the sentence run concurrently).

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, namely, Ganesh Ram Lahre (PW-1) informed the Police about the incident on 11.04.2015 and gave the Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P-1) to Police Inspector, namely, K.P. Banjare (PW-17) that complainant got the information that accused, namely, Poshanlal Verma has hurt the deceased, namely, Shyamcharan Dheevar 3-4 times with his axe at his head with the intention to kill the deceased in front of Jivan Pan Thela. When complainant went at spot, he saw the deceased in a hurt state and accused with his axe and threatening him. The complainant met with the village people Ashok Nayak (PW-9) and Ramnath (PW-10) control the accused and during the incident accused also hurt the Rajwantin Bai (PW-8), who is the wife of the deceased with the axe. They forthwith arranged the treatment and Nandkumar (PW-3) informed the Police that the injured-Shyamcharan was brought to the Government Hospital in an ambulance, where he died on which Police has registered the Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P-6). According to Inquest Report (Ex.P-4), the dead body was examined while doing Panchnama. Visual map of the incident site (Ex.P-2) was prepared and items were seized from the incident site as per Ex.P-7. While conducting the postmortem of the deceased, the report was prepared by Ex.P-10 received. According to Ex.P-8, axe and his own clothes were seized from the accused. The inspection of the seized axe was conducted as per Ex.P-11. A panchnama was prepared from the Revenue Officer as per Ex.P-12. Injured-Rajwantin Bai was also taken for medical examination. In Police Station Mandir Hasoud Merg Intimation (Ex.P-13) and First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.P-15) were registered.

Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to the Community Health Centre, Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). Dr. B.K. Chandravanshi (PW-11) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P-10 and found following injuries :-

(i) Spindle wound 5 x 2 inches in the right temporal parietal region.

(ii) Spindle wound 1½ x ½ inches was present in the right part at the back of the head.

(iii) Spindle wound 1 x ½ inches was present on the right side behind the head.

(iv) Spindle wound ¾ x ½ inches was present in the upper part of the left eye.

(v) On internal examination, brain damage and hemorrhage 12 x 6 inches in size were found in the right temporal parietal and occipital region. Fractures in the right temporal parietal and occipital bones of the head were also found.

He opined that cause of death was severe brain injury and coma due to bleeding and death was homicidal in nature.

Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial from where the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC and proceeded on trial. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents Exhibits P-1 to P-19. The appellant has not examined any witnesses in his support. However, exhibited documents Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 in his defence. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence.

The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2015 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by him calling in question the impugned judgment.

Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that although conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Jeevan Lal Verma (PW-7), who is the eyewitness of the incident, but his evidence does not inspire confidence and not trustworthy, his evidence is not safe for placing reliance in absence of any corroboration from independent source. He further argued that the accused/appellant came to the residence of deceased and demanded 40 tiles given by him. Then deceased had brought tiles and given it to the accused, on giving which the accused said that 05 tiles are less, then deceased brought 05 more tiles and gave him. At this time, the accused, who was in drunken condition had started quarreling with the deceased, in a heat of passion, beating on head with axe to the deceased due to which deceased died. Therefore, even if the entire case is taken at its face value, the case would not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that too for conviction of the appellant for commission of heinous offence of murder, therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.

On the other hand, Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that Jeevan Lal Verma (PW-7), who is the eyewitness of the incident, has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, while he was reading newspaper upon hearing hue and cry he saw that the appellant by means of an axe assaulted the deceased 4 to 5 times and deceased fell down. He further contended that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well.

In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased-Shyamcharan was homicidal in nature ?

The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. B.K. Chandravanshi (PW-11), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Shyamcharan Dheevar, vide Ex.P-10, has clearly come to the conclusion that the death of deceased Shyamcharan Dheevar was homicidal in nature due to severe brain injury and coma due to bleeding. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding.

The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:-

(i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P-10) of Dr. B.K. Chandravanshi (PW-11) who conducted postmortem.

(ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased Shyamcharan Dheevar was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he failed to explain.

In the present case, homicidal death as a result of severe brain injury and coma due to bleeding has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Jeevan Lal Verma (PW-7), FIR (Ex.P-15), Dr. B.K. Chandravanshi (PW-11) and the postmortem report (Ex.P-10) that the death of deceased Shyamcharan Dheevar was homicidal in nature.

As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Jeevan Lal Verma (PW-7) and Dr. B.K. Chandravanshi (PW-11).

Jeevan Lal Verma (PW-7) is the eyewitness of the incident. In his evidence, he stated that on the date of incident i.e. 11.04.2015, in the morning at about 11.00 a.m., he was sitting in his Pan Thela reading the newspaper and other people of the village Krishna Kumar, Dhanesh, Roshan and Shyamcharan were sitting in front. At the same time, when a sound was heard from behind the Pan Thela, he got down and saw that the accused had hit the deceased-Shyamcharan Dheevar 4-5 times with an axe and deceased-Shyamcharan had fallen unconscious. After attacking the deceased, the accused had said that he has killed one person and will kill the other one also. It is wrong to say that at the same time, Rajwantin (PW-8) had reached the spot. It is correct to say that he knew that Rajwantin’s (PW-8) left hand was injured and at the time of incident, Ashok Nayak (PW-9) snatch the axe from the hands of the accused. Thereafter, they had sent the deceased and his wife for treatment in 108 ambulance.

Dr. B.K. Chandravanshi (PW-11) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P-10 and found above stated 05 injuries on the person of the deceased and opined that cause of death was severe brain injury and coma due to bleeding and the death was homicidal in nature.

Now, the question is, whether the prosecution has discharged its initial or general burden or primary duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

In this regard, the trial Court recorded the finding that the accused did this act knowingly and there is evidence on this point that the accused used an iron axe to assault the deceased-Shyamcharan, which can lead to death of any person. By using of this weapon, the accused caused injuries to the body of the deceased by hitting him with such force more than once, due to which the skull of the deceased got fractured and he died as a result of internal bleeding. The accused appears to have full knowledge of the possibilities of causing injuries of this nature to the deceased and the situation of the accused remaining aggressive even after the incident also expresses his intention that he did not want to allow anyone to reach the deceased-Shyamcharan for help. Therefore, for these reasons, it is concluded that the accused has an intention to cause fatal injuries to deceased-Shyamcharan, due to which the deceased has died. The learned trial Court after analyzing the statements of the witnesses and evidence available on record came to the conclusion that accused Poshan Lal Verma has committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC. Hence, he is convicted for the said crime.

A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that,

death of deceased Shyamcharan Dheever was homicidal in nature;

it is the appellant who has murdered the deceased by hitting 4-5 times on his head by iron axe.

Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the finding of the trial Court of its judgment, the fact that the appellant has not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the statement of Jeevan Lal Verma (PW-7) disclosing the fact that the accused/ appellant had hit the deceased-Shyamcharan Dheevar 4-5 times with an axe and deceased-Shyamcharan had fallen unconscious, therefore, the act of the accused/appellant by hitting the deceased with an axe 4-5 times on his head clearly shows the intention of the accused/appellant to kill the deceased. For this reason, it is clearly and reliably shown that it was the accused/appellant, who caused the death of the deceased by hitting the deceased with axe 4-5 times on his head and in this regard, there is no defence on the part of the accused/appellant has been taken during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offences under Section 302 and 324 of the IPC. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court.

For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.

Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.