Allowed

Vedram @ Vedu and Ors. v. State

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jan 2011CRA/314/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed criminal appeals against convictions for unlawful assembly, rioting, and murder. The court acquitted appellants, ruling that the testimonies of relatives and interested witnesses were unreliable due to discrepancies with medical evidence and conduct inconsistent with the gravity of the incident.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were allowed. The conviction and sentences under Sections 148, 302, and 149 IPC were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. Bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged.

Vedram @ Vedu and Ors. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE Date: 2025.02.06 12:32:45 +0530

¶2

RAJESH KUMAR SONTEKE

¶3

•-.SJtl^^^:. "•'?" »N

¶4

HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

D.B.:

¶6

HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 1993

¶8

APPELLANTS 1 Vedram alias Vedu son of Dulari Satnami, aged 27 years

¶9

2 Jhanglu son of Asharam Satnami, aged 24 years

¶10

3 Prabhudayal son of Dulari Satnami, aged 37 years

¶11

4 Sukh Chand son of Dulari Satnami, aged 32 years

¶12

¶13

5 Ramu son of Lalu Satnami, aged 30 years

¶14

All cultivators and residents of village Gogiya, Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur

¶15

Versus

¶16

RESPONDENT

¶17

The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh)

¶18

And

¶19

Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 1993

¶20

APPELLANTS 1. Mohan alias Dherha son of Maharaji Satnami, aged 30

¶21

years

¶22

Kejram, son Pila Satnami, aged 24 years

¶23

Gangu alias Jantu, son of Amar Singh Satnami, aged 29

¶24

years

¶25

4 Rain Khilawan, son of Phool Singh Satnami, aged 24 years

¶26

5 Shankar, son of Kapru Satnami, aged 27 years

¶27

Criminal Apueals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶28

'fO^

¶29

6	Chovaram, son of Adhari Satnami, aged 30 years
7	Pheru, son of Maharajee Satnami, aged 32 years
8	Pila, son of Amar Singh Satnami, aged 39 years (Dead-Name deleted)
9	Phunuwa, son of Amar Singh Satnami, aged 29 years
	All residents of village Gogiya,
	Police Station Bhatapara
	(Gramin), Tahsil Bhatapara,
	District Raipur, M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)

¶30

Versus

¶31

RESPONDENT The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh)

¶32

APPEALS UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

¶33

Appearance :

¶34

Mr. Ashok Swarnakar, Advocate for the appellants.

¶35

Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Panel Lawyer for the State.

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

(4 .01.2011)

¶38

The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J:

¶39

(1) These appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 22nd of February, 1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 294/90 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted u/ss 148 SB 302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 and imprisonment for life with direction to run the years sentences concurrently.

¶40

Criminal Apceals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶41

(2) Appellant- Pila died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, his name has been deleted from the cause-title of Cr.A. No. 486/1993 and the appeal filed on behalf of appellant-Pila stands abated.

¶42

(3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-

¶43

15 accused were tried for the offence persons punishable u/ss 148 8s 302/149 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.4.90 at about 0.30 hours, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, participated in rioting with deadly weapons and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly, committed murder of deceased- Babudas Kotwar. In the intervening night of 19th SB 20th April, 1990, a marriage ceremony was being performed^{inthehouseof FaguvaraminvillageGogiya.The} accused persons were present in the marriage ceremony. House of Shishram (PW-1) is situated by the side of the house of Faguvaram. Somebody spelt stones on the house of Shishram. One stone hit the child of Shishram, on which, Rajkumari (PW-4 - wife of Shishram) came out from the house and started abusing on this account. By the way, Babudas Kotwar (since deceased) also reached there. They saw that all the 15 accused persons were sitting on a Choura (platform) in front of the house of Faguvaram. Babudas Kotwar asked the accused persons as to why they are harassing like this? On this, the accused persons denied to throw stones on the house of Shishram. Babudas Kotwar insisted theru to tell the narae who threw the stone, and threatened that if the name is not told, he will lodge the report in police station. The accused persons opposed the above act of deceased- Babudas Kotwar. Thereafter Babudas went to his house, worn his kotwari-dress, came back to the house of Shishram (PW-1) and took him to lodge the report.

¶44

Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶45

¶46

The allegations are that when they reached to the outer area of the vUlage, all the 15 accused persons came there. Jesuram was armed with barchi and other accused persons were armed with lathis. They assaulted the deceased by said weapons. The deceased received multiple injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Shishram immediately rushed to the police station and lodge the First Information Repot (Ex.-P/l) at about 2.15 hours. The Investigating Offlcer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/ 19) on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Community Health Centre, Bhatapara, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. A.D. Purena (PW-5). He found various lacerated wounds on the body of the deceased. On intemal examination, he found that the brain was mptured; there was a fracture on the 6th right rib; there was a laceration of 10 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm on the liver; and there was also a fracture on the radius bone of right hand. He opined that the cause of death was syncope due to injury to the brain and it was horaicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ex.-P/2. During the course of investigation, various articles, including lathis 85 barchi, were seized at the instances of the appellants and were sent for their chemical examinafion to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, from where, a report (Ex.-P/53) was received. According to the F.S.L. report blood stains were found on barchi & lathi said to be seized from the possession of accused Jesuram and Ram IChilawan. However, no report relating to the origin and the group of the blood stains could be filed.

¶47

The case of the prosecution is based on the eyewitness account of Shishram (PW-1), Anant Kumar (PW-2). and Chatur Singh (PW-3). The learned Sessions Judge relied on the testimonies of these witnesses and held that all the

¶48

Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶49

,..::/

¶50

accused personswere members pf the unlawful assembly; they participated in rioting with deadly weapons; and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly corainitted murder of deceased- Babudas Kotwar in the above manner. Therefore, all were convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. Out of 15 accused persons, 14 are before us, whereas accused Jesuram Gled a separate appeal bearing Cruninal Appeal No. 140/1994, which was dismissed as abated on 20.10.2010 on account of death of sole appellant- Jesuram.

¶51

Mr. Ashok Swarnakar, leamed counsel appearing on behalf (4) of the appeUants, argued that Shishram. (PW-1) is the brother-inlaw {sala) of the deceased and Chatur Singh (PW-3) is father-inlaw of the deceased, therefore, they are interested witnesses. Their conduct would show that they were not reliable witnesses and looking to the history of existing party-bandi in the village, the appellants have been falsely implicated by them. About Anant Kumar (PW-2), he argued fhat he appears to be a got-up wifaiess and his version is quite unnatiu-al. Apart from the above, he also argued that there are many material discrepancies in the evidence of this witness and there is discrepancy in the evidence of above eye-witnesses and medical evidence. Therefore, the conviction based on the testiraonies of these witnesses ceinnot be sustained.

¶52

On the other hand, Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned Panel (5) Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.

¶53

'l,

¶54

Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶55

¶56

(6) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe sessions case.

¶57

(7) So far as arguments relating to relative/interested witnesses are concemed, in Harbans Kaur and another -Vs- State of Hartiand, 2005 AIR SCW 2074, the Supreme Court held that there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiaUty is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.

¶58

In Namdeo -Vs- State of Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW (8) 1835, the Supreme Court held that a witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has some direct or indirect 'interest in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Supreme Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested witness. He is a natural witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary close relative of the deceased would

¶59

Criminal AppealsNo. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶60

normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one.

¶61

In Sonela!^-Vs- State of M.P.. 2008 AIR SCW 7988, the (9) Supreme Court again said that merely because the eye witnesses are family merabers their evidence cannot be per-se discarded. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

¶62

In Dhamidhar -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others & (10) other connected appeals, (2010) 7 SCC 759, the Supreme Court further reiterated that there is no hard-and-fast rule that farnily members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before court. The Supreme Court held that a close relative of deceased does not, per-se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before court only with that intention and not to further cause ofjustice. However, version of interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be exaniined carefully before acGepting the same. When their statements find corroboration by other witnesses, expert evidence and circumstances of case clearly depict completion of chain of

¶63

Crimmal Aopeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶64

evidence pointing out guilt of accused, then statements of socalled "interested witnesses can be relied upon by court.

¶65

(11) Therefore, this argument cannot find favoiu- that the testimonies of relative witnesses cannot be relied on, only on the ground that they were the relatives of the deceased. However their evidence is to be scrutinized with due care and caution and if their evidence is found credible in appreciation, the conviction can well be based on their such testimonies.

¶66

(12) Shishram (PW-1) is brother-in-law (sala) of deceasedBabudas. His house is situated near the house of Babudas. Babudas was the Kotwar of village since last 15 years. Shishram (PW-1) deposed that when stones were thrown on his house, his wife Rajkumari (PW-4) went out from the house and started abusing on that account. According to him some hot exchanges took place between accused Jesuram, Pila 85 Vedram @ Vedu on the one hand and Rajkumari (PW-4) on the other hand. They were also abusing Rajkumari and were saying to send him (ShishramPW-1) out. It is at this stage Babudas Kotwar came there. Some hot exchanges took place between deceased- Babudas and the accused persons and thereafter the deceased said him to lodge report. After this he accompanied the deceased and they started for going to police station Bhatapara. When they reached near the tank, which is in the outer area of the village, he stopped for urination and deceased- Babudas went to a distance of 30-40 l-'7^aacei^^steps ahead. It is at this time, aU the accused persons came there,

¶67

il !'s '^^ '^&s-itP"'' ^f

¶68

Crimiml Apoeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶69

stopped the deceased and assaulted him by lathis, stones 85 barchi. According to hira accused Jesuram. was holding the barchi and ofher accused persons were holding lathis. In the crossexamination, it was asked as to whether 50-60 lathi blows hit on the person of the deceased, on which, he answered that miiltiple lathi blows hit the deceased. The deceased was assaulted by stones also and Jesuram assaulted fhe deceased by barchi. He further admitted that repeated blows were given by lathi, barchi & stones. He hidden himself in the bushes present near the place of occurrence and he was frightened. Though he witnessed the incident for half an hour, but he did not raise hue and cry. Even he did not try to protect the deceased. He mentioned in his evidence that he did not see Anant Kumar (PW-2) coming towards the place of occurrence because he was hidden in the bushes. However he added that he heard that Jesu and Pila were saying somebody as to why you have come to die? He cannot say that to whom. they were saymg like that. We further note that even after wita-iessing such an incident, Shishram (PW-1) did not try to take the deceased to fhe viUage. Even he did not go to village to call other persons for help. On the contrary he left the dead body on the road and went to the police station. The evidence of Shishram (PW-1) is not corroborated by the medical evidence, inasmuch as no incised wound or pierced wound (caused by barchz) were found on the body of fhe deceased. Shishram has given specific evidence that repeated barchi blows hit on the body of the deceased. This

¶70

¶71

Criminal Auneals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶72

appears to be material discrepancy in the evidence of Shishram (PW-1) and the medical evidence ofDr. A.D. Purena (PW-5).

¶73

(13) Chatur Singh (PW-3) is father-in-law of deceased- Babudas. He was permanently residing with Babudas. He deposed that on the fateful night at about 10.00 p.m. Babudas wore kotwari-dress and went for patrolling iri the village. After about one hour, fhe accused persons came from towards their house and they also went towards the same side where deceased-Babudas had gone. He also followed them. After sometime, he heard the cries of deceased-Babudas and saw that the accused persons were assaulting him by bolder, stones 8s lathis. Accused- Jesu was armed with barchi. He saw the incident from a distance of 50 feet. According to him Babudas died on the place of occurrence. He went back to his house and slept in the night. He admitted in the cross-examination that there is party-bandi in village Gogiya. Accused persons are the members of one party and he is member of the other party which belongs to Kashiram. According to him, the accused persons left the place of occurrence after the assault was over. of Even after the accused persons left the place occurrence, he did not go to see Babudas. He did not make any hue and cry at the time of occurrence. Even he did not disclose the incident in the village in the night. According to his evidence, he was fully dependant on deceasedBabudas and was permanently residing with him since long back. The above conduct of this witness makes his evidence highly suspicious. The

¶74

¶75

Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶76

father-in-law would never leave injured/dead son-in-law on the road for whole night and will never go and sleep in his house without hue and cry and without maldng any complaint to fhe villagers. If the accused persons had left the place of occurrence as stated by him, he would have gone to see the deceased and would have tried to rescue hini. According to the prosecution, Babudas, after hot exchanges with the accused persons, had returned to his house and after wearing kotwari-dress he left the village for going to police station, whereas according to Chatur Singh (PW-3), he was already wearing kotwari-dress and he had gone in the village for patrolling. Why he will follow the Kotwar when he is going for patrolling in the night. Besides the above Rajkumari (PW-4) admitted in her cross-examination that Chatur ejv Singh (PW-3)/ not present in the village on the date of incident as he had, gone to village Sonbarsha. All this make the evidence of PW-3 —Chatur Singh highly suspicious. Shishram (PW-1) and Chatur Singh (PW-3) are close relatives of the deceased. The history is that there was a party-bandi in the village. There are material discrepancies in the evidence of Shishram (PW-1), Chatur Singh (PW-3) and the medical evidence of Dr. A.D. Purena (PW-5). The evidence of Shishram (PW-1) and Chatur Singh (PW-3) are also contradictory on many points. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of above two relative witnesses, we are of the opinion that it was not safe to rely on their testimonies and the learned Sessions Judge erred in law in relying on their testimonies for resting the conviction of the appellants.

¶77

¶78

Cnminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶79

'%^^y.,/' :'<ii*aBcii;s;s?''

¶80

(14) Anant Kumar (PW-2) deposed that "On the fateful night at about 11-12 when he came out from his house for urination, he heard some noise of beating by lathis and stones. He went towards the side of noise and saw that all the 15 accused persons were assaulting deceased- Babudas- Kotwar. Jesuram was carrying barchi and other accused persons were carrying lathis and stones. He went to the accused persons and asked them as to why they are assaulting the Kotwar? On this, accused- Jesuram, Pila, Punva and Vedram abused him and said him to go away. Thereafter he went and slept in his house. In the morning, he again went to the place of the occurrence and saw that KotwarBabudas was lying in dead condition. There were many pierced wounds on his body which were caused by barchi. There were many injuries of lathis. The testicles of Babudas were removed and they were put in his hands". Anant Kumar (PW-2) has been examined as an independent witness. His testimony appears to be highly doubtful. According to medical evidence we do not find that the testicles of the deceased were removed. We also do not find any injury on the body of the deceased which could have been caused by barchi. According to Anant Kumar (PW-2), he had talked with the accused persons as he protested that why they are assaulting the Kotwar, whereas Shishram (PW-1) never deposed that he saw Anant Kumar (PW-2) at the place of occurrence and he also saw him talked with the accused persons. Moreover, even after seeing such an incident, Anant Kumar (PW-2) simply went to his house and slept in the night. On appreciation of his entire

¶81

¶82

Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993

¶83

evidence in light of medical evidence and evidence of Shishram (PW-1), we do not find his evidence to be trustworthy.

¶84

(15) On a close scrutiny of the evidence of two relative witnesses i.e. Shishram (PW-1 - brother-in-law of the deceased), Chatur Singh (PW-3 - father-in-law of the deceased) and Anant Kumar (PW-2), who has been examined as an independent witness, we find that their testimonies are not reliable and the conviction based on their such testimonies cannot be sustained. It is an admitted position that there was a party-bandi in the village and both the groups belong to different parties, therefore, a possibility offalse implication cannot be fully ruled out in the matter.

¶85

(16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants u/ss 148 SB 302/149 IPC are set-aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. It is stated that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged.

¶86

._I.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sunil Kumar Sinha
chief Justice
Judge

¶87

vatti

Vedram @ Vedu and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vedram @ Vedu and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhatturam Vs G.R.Jangde and Ors.

Smt. Krishna Devi Sharma and Anr. Vs Shri Arun Dev Goutam and Ors.

Ku. Suniti Kaiwart Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Chenaram and Ors. Vs State

Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs State

Ban Singh and Ors. Vs State