Ramhau Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pritinker Diwaker, J

 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.04.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Durg

in Sessions Trial No. 166/2009 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay

fine of Rs. 5000/-, plus default stipulation.

Name of the deceased in the present case is Khubiram Sinha. Case of the prosecution is that as the accused/appellant was suspecting the deceased

to be the one at whose instance his wife had filed a maintenance case against him, he started nurturing enmity with him and eventually on 9.8.2009 at

6 AM killed him by inflicting number of club injuries on his head. Incident is said to have been witnessed by Chandrahas Sahu (PW-10) and Jhagendra

Sahu (PW-11). On the same day at 11 AM FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered against the accused/appellant at the instnce of Nutan Kumar Sinha (PW-3) -

the nephew of the deceased. However, as the deceased was brought dead to the hospital, un-numbered merg Ex. P-1 was recorded on the same day

at 10.15 AM followed by numbered merg Ex. P-2 recorded on the same day 9.40 PM. After drawing inquest vide Ex. P-4, the dead-body was sent

for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. S.S. Rajput (PW-14) who gave his report Ex. P-25. On the memorandum of

accused/appellant Ex. P-10, seizure of soil, blood stained club, blood stained vest and a bicycle, was made under Ex. P-11, P-12 and P-13. Court

below framed the charge against the accused/appellant herein under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC whereas against the co-accused namely Tikaram it

was under Section 120-B and 302/34 IPC.

In order to prove the complicity of the accused persons in the crime in question, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. Statements of the

accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded in which they denied their guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication in the

case.

After hearing the parties, the Court below acquitted accused Tikaram of the charges levelled against him but has convicted and sentenced the

accused/appellant herein as mentioned above.

Counsel for the accused/appellant submits as under:

(i) That the eyewitnesses to the incident being (PW-10 and PW-11) are not reliable who, in fact, had not seen the actual occurrence.

(ii) That from the merg intimations (Ex.P-1 and P-2) it is apparent that the deceased died an accidental death but later it has un-necessarily been

converted into the that of the murder at the behest of PW-10 and PW-11.

(iii) That though on the memorandum of accused/appellant blood stained club and blood stained clothes were seized and FSL report is also positive yet

in the absence of serological report, the FSL report is not of any significance.

State counsel however supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing the

accused/appellant as described above are based on due appreciation of the evidence on record and there is no infirmity in the same. He submits that

two eyewitnesses (PW-10 and PW-11) have categorically stated that they saw the accused/appellant repeatedly inflicting the club injuries to the

deceased and also narratned as to in what manner the incident occurred. As regards the argument of the counsel for the accused/appellant that the

death was accidental, State counsel submits that body of the deceased was found near the road and the person who hospitalised the deceased prima

facie may have thought it to be a case of accident and that is why it was reported as such. He submits that till recording of merg, diary statements of

these two eyewitnesses were not recorded otherwise the situation would have been different.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Chandrahas Sahu (PW-10) - an eyewitness to the incident has stated that on the date of incident when he along with his younger brother Jhagendra

Kumar Sahu (PW-11) was returning after the morning walk, he saw the accused/appellant herein riding the bicycle, on the career of which acquitted

accused Tikaram was sitting. Thereafter, according to this witness, accused/appellant got down the bicycle, went to the decesed who was standing

near his field and inflicted club blows on his head and at that time the acquitted accused was standing at some distance. Accused/appellant is stated to

have continuously inflicted the club blows even after the deceased had fallen down on the ground. This witness has further stated that when he along

with his brother (PW-11) went near the deceased, he was lying unconscious with the injuries on head profusely bleeding. Taking it to be a police case

he and PW-11 went away thinking that on arrival of the police disclosure of the occurrence would be made. But for the minor contradictions in the

cross- examination, this witness stood firm to what he has stated in the examination-in-chief. In paragraphs 18 and 20 of his deposition, this witness

has again categorically stated that the accused/appellant was seen by him assaulting the deceased with the help of club. He has specifically denied the

fact that in order to ensure false implication of the accused/appellant, he has deposed the things against him. Jhagendra Sahu (PW-11) - another

eyewitness to the incident and younger brother of PW-10 has stated that on the date of incident while returning after his morning exercise along with

his elder brother (PW-10), he saw the accused/appellant assaulting the deceased with club. He has further stated that on account of the injuries

inflicted on head, the deceased had fallen down and become unconscious. Acquitted accused, according to this witness, was however standing at

some distance and he did not take part in the assault. According to this witness, on account of fear, he did not disclose the incident to anyone and after

some time came to know about the death of the deceased. In cross-examination also this witness stood firm in stating that it is the accused/appellant

who was seen by him assaulting the deceased with club. Dr. S.S. Rajput (PW-14) is the witness who conducted postmortem examination on the body

of the deceased and gave his report Ex. P-25 stating that he noticed abrasions on great toe and second toe - both in the size of 1/2 x 1/2 cm; lacerated

wound on right occipital region in the size of 5 x 3 x 8 cm; and fracture of right occipital and temporal bone. Cause of death has been opined as shock

due to haemorrhage as a result of extensive injury on head. S.N. Shukla (PW-12) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the

prosecution. Bodhanlal Sahu (PW-1) and Pradeep Kumar Mishra (PW-2) are the witnesses who assisted in the investigation. Nutan Kumar Sinha

(PW-3) is the witness who lodged FIR (Ex.P-7). He is stated to have been informed by PW-10 that it is the accused/appellant herein who assaulted

the deceased with club. Beniram (PW-4) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Romlal Sinha (PW-5) is the

witness to inquest Ex. P-4. Bednath Sinha (PW-6) is the brother of the deceased who took him to the hospital. PW-5 and PW-6 have also proved the

motive on the part of the accused/appellant. Mahesh Kumar Thakur (PW-7) is the Patwari who prepared spot map Ex.P-9. Bhisham (PW-8) - the

witness to memorandum and seizure has duly supported the case of the prosecution. Shivdayal Sahu (PW-9) is the witness who informed PW-6 that

his brother was lying in an unconscious condition. R.G.S. Gautam (PW-13) is the witness who did part of the investigation.

We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence of the witnesses and other material available on record at considerable

length. PW-10 and PW-11 are the eyewitnesses to the incident who have categorically supported the case of the prosecution stating that on the date

of incident when they were returning after morning walk, accused/appellant along with acquitted accused came there on bicycle, got down, went to

the field where the deceased was working and dealt number of club blows on his head. Their evidence further shows that the accused/appellant did

not stop the assault even after the deceased fell down, and when all this was going on, acquitted accused kept standing on the road. As per the

postmortem report Ex. P-25 deceased had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of right occipital and temporal bone which led to his

instantenous death. While answering the query vide Ex. P-18-A, this witness has clarified that the head injury suffered by the deceased could have

been caused with the club produced before him for examination. True it is that in the un-numbered merg (Ex.P-1), RTA (Road Traffic Accident) is

mentioned as the cause of death but it is simply because by that time the eyewitnesses (PW-10 and PW-11) were not examined, and as the body of

the deceased was seen lying near the road, such a thing could have been recorded. Multiple injuries present on the body of the deceased including

fracture and query report Ex. P-18-A to the effect that the head injury could be caused with the club seized by the prosecution, rule out every

possibility of it being a case of Road Traffic Accident. Moreover, as per the un- exhibited FSL report blood has been found on the club so seized

which looking to the evidence on record and in the absence of any explanation from the accused/appellant in this respect, it becomes an additional link

against him even in the absence of serological report. PW-5 and PW-6 have also proved the motive which could have prompted the accused to

commit the murder of the deceased as according to them the deceased stood a witness in some matrimonial case against the accused/appellant.

Having thus seen the evidence on record as a whole, it can safely be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. So also

the Court below has assessed the evidence in the right perspective while arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the accused/appellant for committing the

murder of the deceased, and there is no illelgality or infirmity in the same.

Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Judgment under challenge is affirmed. As the

accused/appellant is already in jail, there is no need of any direction in this regard.