Rovind @ Sameer Satnami vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been preferred by the appellant herein assailing the impugned judgment dated 30/10/2014 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Sessions Trial No. 04/2014 whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 50 days.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11/10/2013 at about 03:00 PM at village Gidhpuri which comes within the ambit of P.S. Pallari, the appellant herein assaulted Vidya Kumari with a sickle and caused her death, thereby, committing the offence in question.

Further case of the prosecution is that appellant had a love affair with the deceased and on the date of the incident, at about 03:00 PM, deceased Vidya Kumari, along with her sister-in-law Yuvranibai (P.W.-2) and her sister Arti Banjare (P.W.-3), was getting ready to visit Dongardevi Temple/the fair organized therein but the appellant unauthorizedly entered her house and asked the deceased not to go to the said temple. Deceased Vidya Kumari refuted and asked the appellant with what authority he was stopping her and thereafter, the appellant, out of anger, dragged the deceased to his house in the presence of Yuvranibai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) and assaulted her with sickle and caused grievous injuries on her neck due to which she died instantaneously.

Yuvranibai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) informed about the incident to Dwarikadas (P.W.-1), stepfather of deceased Vidya Kumari, who reported the incident at Pallari Police Station on the basis of which, merg intimation was registered vide Ex. P/1 and first information report was lodged against the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC vide Ex. P/2. Summons were issued to the witnesses vide Ex. P/7 and in their presence, inquest was conducted vide Ex. P/8 pursuant to which the dead body of deceased Vidya Kumari was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. B.S. Dhruv (P.W.-7) and as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/10), cause of death is said to be complication of haemorrhage shock as a result of grievous incised wound, mode of death is said to be asphyxia and the nature of death is said to be homicidal. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded twice vide Exhibits P/18 and P/19 on the basis of which, iron sickle and the clothes worn by the appellant at the time of the incident have been seized from his possession vide Ex. P/21 and appellant's personal diary as well as love letter written by the deceased have also been seized from the possession of the appellant vide Ex. P/22. From the spot, plain soil, blood stained soil and a blood stained utensil have been seized vide Ex. P/20. At the time of shav panchnama, a love letter written by the appellant to the deceased was recovered from the clothes of the deceased vide Ex. P/9. All the seized articles were though sent for chemical examination, but no FSL report has been brought on record. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has falsely been implicated in the crime in question.

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and brought on record 33 documents. The statement of appellant/accused was recorded wherein he denied guilt and exhibited the statements of Dwarika Das, Smt. Yuvrani and Kumari Arti as D/1 to D/3 in his defence.

Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC mainly relying upon the statements of eye-witnesses Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3).

Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the testimony of eye-witnesses Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) are not reliable as they are relative witnesses. He would further submit that though recovery of blood stained sickle has been made from the possession of the appellant pursuant to his memorandum statement, but no FSL report has been brought on record to prove that the blood found on the sickle was that of the appellant, much less, it was human blood, as such, there is no evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question and therefore, the instant appeal be allowed by acquitting the appellant of the charge punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Per contra, Mr. Ishan Verma, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that learned trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 relying upon the statements of eye-witnesses Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) as though they have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but they have remained consistent and have supported the case of the prosecution, as such, the instant 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 that requires consideration is whether the death of deceased Vidya Kumari was homicidal in nature and it has been answered in affirmative by the trial Court relying upon the expert medical opinion of Dr. B.S. Dhruv (P.W.-7), who has conducted postmortem as well as the postmortem report (Ex. P/10) in which it has clearly been recorded that cause of death is heamorrhagic shock as a result of grievous incised wound and the nature of death is homicidal. The said postmortem report (Ex. P/10) has been proved by Dr. B.S. Dhruv (P.W.-7), who has clearly stated before the Court, that there were grievous incised wounds on the neck and right wrist of the deceased and she had died due to asphyxia. He has further stated before the Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. As such, relying upon the postmortem report (Ex. P/10) as well as the statement of Dr. B.S. Dhruv (P.W.-7), it can safely be inferred that the death of deceased was indeed homicidal in nature, more so, when it has also not been refuted by learned counsel for the appellant. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that learned trial Court has rightly held that death of deceased Vidya Kumari was homicidal in nature.

The next question for consideration is whether the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime in question ?

Learned trial Court has also recorded an affirmative finding in this regard finding the motive of offence duly proved by the prosecution and relying upon the statements of eye-witnesses Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3).

It is the case of the prosecution that appellant had a liking towards the deceased and he had developed feelings for her which is apparent from the personal diary of the appellant containing love letters written by him to the deceased (Article A) which has also been proved by Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2), as such, learned trial Court has rightly held that appellant had motive to commit the murder of the deceased.

Moreover, learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of the statements of eye-witnesses Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3). Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) is the sister-in-law of deceased Vidya Kumari and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) is the sister of deceased Vidya Kumari. Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) has clearly stated in her statement before the Court that on the date of the incident, at about 03:00 PM, the three of them were getting ready to visit Dongardevi Temple near Balodabazar and meanwhile, the appellant, who stayed in their neighborhood, came to their house and insisted the deceased not to visit the temple. Deceased Vidya Kumari refused and asked the appellant what authority he had to ask her not to go to the temple to which, out of anger, the appellant caught hold of the deceased and dragged her to his house and after picking up the sickle kept in the courtyard of his house, the appellant inflicted multiple blows on the neck and wrist of the deceased as a result of which the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died instantaneously. Immediately thereafter, Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) informed about the incident to Dwarikadas (P.W.-1), stepfather of deceased, who then reported the matter at the Police Station. A careful perusal of the statement of Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) would show that she has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has been extracted to say that she has not actually seen the appellant assaulting the deceased rather she has persistently mentioned that when the appellant dragged the deceased to his house, she and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) followed them and they had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with sickle.

Arti Banjare (P.W.-3), sister of deceased Vidya Kumari, has also made a similar statement that on the date of the incident, she along with Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and the deceased were getting ready to visit the Dongardevi Temple/fair organized therein and at about 03:00 PM, the appellant came to their house and stopped the deceased from visiting the said temple and when the deceased refused to obey and asked him as to what authority he had over her, the appellant angrily dragged the deceased to his house and assaulted her with sickle on her neck and hands due to which, she died on the spot. Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) has also been cross-examined thoroughly, but she has also remained consistent in her version and has clearly stated that she has witnessed the appellant committing the murder of the deceased.

As such, from the statements of Yuvrani Bai (P.W.-2) as well as Arti Banjare (P.W.-3), it has clearly been established that they are eye-witnesses to the incident and it is the appellant who has assaulted the deceased with sickle and thereby, caused her death. Moreover, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Exhibits P/18 and P/19, blood stained sickle has also been seized from his possession vide Ex. P/21 though for the reasons best known to the prosecution, no FSL report has been brought on record to prove the blood found on the said sickle, however, in view of the testimonies of two eye-witnesses Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3), it cannot be held that appellant is not the perpetrator of the crime in question.

In view of the aforesaid legal discussion, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant and learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by recording findings which are neither perverse nor contrary to the record.

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.