Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Aug 2012CRA/675/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal against a life imprisonment conviction for murder. The Court held that circumstantial evidence conclusively proved the appellant killed his wife, rejecting his failure to offer explanations for her death and the acceptance of his alibi as false.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.

Manoj Kumar Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH^{COURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR}

¶2

D.B.: Hon’bie^{ShriJusticeSunilKumarSinhaand} Hon’ble^{ShriJusticeRadheShyamSharma}

¶3

Criminal^{AggealNo.675of2007}

¶4

Manoj^Kumar versus State^{ofChhattisgarh}

¶5

JUDGMENT FOR CONSIDERATION /r
M ~
5:}!-
<br>R.S. Shanna
Judge

¶6

Hon’ble^{ShriSunilKumarSinha,J.:}

¶7

4f yym‘
9
Sdl=
§umii Kumar Siiaim
Emigg "d

¶8

Post for W’Li -08-2012
Sdl—
‘
R.S. SHARMA
Judge

¶9

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR N

¶10

D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha and Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhe Shxam Sharma

¶11

Criminal Aggea: No.675 of 2007

¶12

AQQeHant

¶13

Resgondent

¶14

Manoj Kumar, S/o Dharamdas Satnami, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Temari, Poiice Station Ranchirai, District Durg

¶15

verSUS ' State of Chhattisgarh

¶16

L Present: - Shri Ashok Verma, counsel for the appellant. . Shri J.A.Lo.hani, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.

¶17

Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cgde of CriminalrProcedure

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Delivered on j§L%’August,‘2o12)

¶20

Per Radhe Shyam Sharma, J.:

¶21

This appeal is directed against judgment dated 04-05-2007 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg inISessions Trial No.43/2007. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Manoj Kumar has been convicted under Section 302 of the lndian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay hne of Rs.100/—, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 7 days.

¶22

Case of the prosecution, in brief,is as under:

¶23

Love marriage was performed between the appellant and deceased Bisantin Bai about 11/2 years prior to 10-11-2006, i.e., the date of incident. A child was born out of their wedlock. On the date

¶24

¶25

of incident, age of the child was nearabout 5—6 months. Thé appellant^{andthedeceasedwereresidingtogetheralongwiththeir} child. Relation between the appellant^and the deceased was not cordial and the appellant used to commit Marpeet with the deceased. On this account, the deceased used to come to her maternal^house [house^{ofherNanaBabulal(PW-2)],situatedinthe} same village, along with her child. 2—3 days prior^to 10-11-2006 also, the^{deceasedhad,duetoMarpeetcommittedwithherbythe} appellant,^{cometothehouseofBabulal(PW—2)alongwithherchild} and was residing there. On 10-11-2006, at about 10:30 a.m., the . appellant^{cametothedeceasedatthehouseofBabulal(PW—2)and} after about^{1/2-an-hourhetookhischildonlyandwentbacktohis} home. After sometime,^{thedeceasedalsowenttohermatrimonial} house behind the appellant. Thereafter, at about 12 noon, Firoz is brother^{ofthedeceased,wenttothehouseofthe} (PW—4),^who He saw that^{thechildwaslyingonacotandwas} appellant^to play. weeping and the deceased^was lying smeared with blood near a door inside^{thehouse.Atthattime,theappellantwasnotpresentin} and Babulal the house. Firoz (PW-4)^{wenttoChhannulal} (PW-1) and narrated them the incident. Chhannulal (PW-1) and (PW-2) Babulal (PW—2)^{wenttothehouseoftheappellantalongwithFiroz} They saw that the deceased^was lying dead inside the (PW-4). house. The appellant^was not present at the house at that time. Fekanbai (PW-3),^{motherofthedeceasedalsowentthereandsaw} the deceased. Thereafter,^{theysearchedfortheappellantbuthe} was not found.^Thereafter, Fekanbai (PW—3), Babulal (PW-2)^and Chhannulal (PW-1)^{begantogotopolicestationtolodgea} report.

¶26

¶27

On the way‘ the appellant was found coming on his feet near Jamgaon. .On being asked, the appellant told them about killing of the deceased by him in anger with Tangiya and Gainti on account of her non—cooking food and having fled, frequent visiting of her maternal house. Having reached the police station, Chhannulal (PW-1)^{lodgedFirstInformationReport} (Ex.P-1) and Merg Intimation (Exp—2).

¶28

¶29

The investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, gave^notice (EXP-3)^toPanchasand prepared inquest (EXP-4) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent to Community Health Centre, Gunderdehi for post mortem examination vide EXP—14 where post mortem examination was conducted by Dr.C.B.Prasad (PW-14),^whogave his report (EX.P— 23), in'which he found nearabout 11 injuries on the dead body of the deceased. He opined that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to multiple incised wounds on various parts of the body and the death was homicidal in nature.

¶30

ln further investigation, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P-5 and at his instance, Tangiya/Gainti, pant and shirt were seized vide Ex.P-6. Plain soil and blood stained soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P,—7, Broken necklace, bracelet and Nathani (nose-top) were also seized vide Ex.P—8. Patwari Dinesh Kumar Sahu (PW-10) prepared the spot map vide Ex.P—1O and the Investigating Officer also prepared spot map vide Ex.P—13.

¶31

¶32

The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-17.

¶33

After compietion of^the investigation, charge sheet^was tiled against the appeliant in the Court of Additionai Chief Judicial Magistrate; Durg, who, in turn, committed^{thecasetotheCourtof} Session, Durg, from^where, it was received^{ontransferbySecond} Additionai Sessions Judge, who conducted the trial and Qurg, convicted and^{sentencedtheappellantasmentionedabove.} 3. Shri‘Ashok^Verma, learned counsel^{fortheappellantargued} that the finding of guilt recorded on the basis of evidence of last seen together^{isnotreasonable.Hefurtherarguedthattheappellant} in the house^{atthetimeofincident,} therefore,^he was not present was not responsible for the death of the deceased. He further argued that the circumstantial^evidence is not conclusive^and it is well settled^{lawthatastrongsuspicion} is no substitute^fora proof. recorded by^{thelearnedAdditionalSessions} Therefore,^thefinding Judge is not^{sustainableandtheappellantdeservestobeacquitted.}

¶34

Shri J.A.Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent,^{supportingtheimpugnedjudgment,submittedthat} the conviction and sentence awarded by the leaned Additional Sessions^{JudgedonotwarrantanyinterferencebythisCourt.}

¶35

We have heard^{learnedcounselforthe} parties^atlengthand have perused^{therecordofSessionsTrialNo.43/2007.Admittedly,} there is no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution^{isbasedonthecircumstantialevidence.}

It iswell settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reiiable and clinching evidence and the circumstances from^{whichtheconciusionof} guilt^is to be drawn should be fully established. It is also well settled that suspicion, howsoever grave it may be, cannot be substitute for a proof^and the Court should take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the^{basisofthecircumstantialevidence.} 7. .In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Balak and another, (2008)^{15SCC551,theHon’bleSupremeCourthasheldthus:} “11: “9. it has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case^{restssquarelyoncircumstantial} evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts^{andcircumstancesare} found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any^other person. (See^Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1977)^{2SCC99,Eraduv.} State of Hyderabad,^{AIR1956SC316,Earabhadrappa} v. State of Karnataka, (1983)^{2SCC330,StateofU.P.} v. Sukhbasi, 1985 Supp SCC 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1987) 1 SCC 1, and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P., 1989 Supp (1)^SCC 560) The circumstances from^whichan inference as to the guilt^{oftheaccusedisdrawnhavetobeprovedbeyond} reasonable doubt and have^{tobeshowntobeclosely} connected with the principal^{factsoughttobe} inferred from those circumstances. ln Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621, it was laid down that^where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the

¶40

é?

¶41

¶42

innocence of the accused^{andbringhome{heoffences} beyond any reasonable^doubt.

¶43

We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P., (1^{996)10SCC193,wherein} it has been observed thus: (SCC pp.^206-07, para²¹⁾

¶44

‘21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the^{settiedlawisthatthecircumstancesfrom} which the conclusion of guilt is draWn should be fully proved^{andsuchcircumstancesmustbeconclusive} in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete^{andthereshouldbeno} gap^{leftinthechainof} evidence. Further, the proved^{circumstancesmustbe} consistent^onlywith the hypothesis of the guilt^ofthe accused and^{totallyinconsistentwithhisinnocence.”}

¶45

ln Padala^{VeeraReddyvs.Stateof‘AndhraPradeshand} others, AIR^{1990SC79,theHon’bleSupremeCourthasheldthus:}

¶46

“10. .......... This Cowt in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial^{evidencesuchevidencemustsatisfythe} following tests:-

¶47

the circumstances from which an inference of (1) guilt‘is^{soughttobedrawn,mustbecogentlyandfirmly} established; (2) .those circumstanCes should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

¶48

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain^{socompletethatthere} is no escape^from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

¶49

¶50

¶51

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be compiete and incapable of explanation of any other^{hypothesisthanthatofthe} guilt of the accused and^{suchevidenceshould} not only be consistent with the guilt^oftheaccused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. ..........

¶52

In Ramreddy Rajesh^{KhannaReddyandanothervs.State} of A.P., (2006)^{10SCC172,theHon’bleSupremeCourthasheld} thus:

¶53

“27. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play^wherethetime gap^{betweenthepointoftimewhen} the accused and^{thedeceasedwerelastseenaliveand} the deceased^{isfounddeadissosmallthat} possibility^of any person other^{thantheaccusedbeingtheauthorof} the crime becomes^impossible. Even in such a case^the courts should^{lookforsomecorroboration.”}

¶54

(See^{alsoInspectorofPolice,TamilNaduvs.JohnDavid,(2011)} 5 SCC 509 and^{StateofU.P.vs.Satish,} (2005)^3SCC114).

¶55

Now, we shall proceed^{toexaminethecircumstantialevidence} adduced by the prosecution^inorderto prove^{theoffenceagainstthe} appellant and shall see whether^the prosecution^{hasbeenableto} prove^{theoffenceagainsttheappellantinconformitywiththeabove} principles?

¶56

is a 11. So far as the question^{regardingcircumstancethatthis} house-murder^isconcerned, it is not disputed^{thatthedeadbodyof} the deceased was^{foundinthehouseoftheappellantandherdeath} was homicidal^innature.

Fekénbai (PW—3)

¶61

Babulal (PW-2),

¶62

1. Chhannuia! (PW-1), Dujram (PW—5)^{deposedthatthedeceasedwaswifeoftheappellant} 11/2 years prior^tothe

¶63

and^{theirmarriagewasperformednearabout} date of incident and out of their wedlock, one child was born. Chhannulal (PW—1),^{Babulal(PW—2)andFekanbai(PW-3)deposed} in the

¶64

that^{theappellantandthedeoeasedwereresidingtogether} house^{oftheappellant.Theyfurtherdeposedthat2-3dayspriorto} to the^house of her

¶65

the^{deceasedhadgone}

¶66

the^date of incident, Nana^{Babulal(PW-2)andwasresidingthere.Theyfurtherdeposed} that^{onthedateofincident,atabout10a.m.,theappellanttookhis} child back^from the^house of Babulal (PW-2)^to his house.^Soon also^{wenttothehouse} of the appellant

¶67

the^deceased

¶68

thereafter, behind^him.

¶69

Firoz (PW-4)^{deposedthatatabout12noon,hewenttothe} He^{sawthatthechild}

¶70

house^{oftheappellantandopenedthedoor.} was^{lyingonacotandwasweepingandthedeceasedwas} lying

¶71

_^{deadnearadoorofthehouse.HeimmediatelywenttoChhannulal} and narrated them the incident.

¶72

and Babulal (PWv2)

¶73

(PW—1) Chhannulal^{(PW-1)andBabulal(PW—2)deposedthatFiroz(PW—4)} narrated^{themtheincident.Thereafter,theywenttothehouseofthe} appellant^{alongwithFiroz(PW-4).Theysawtherethatthedeceased} was^{lyingdeadandtheappellantwasnotpresentthere.Chhannulal} lying^smearedwith blood

¶74

that^{thedeceasedwas}

¶75

(PW—1)^deposed and^{wasdead.Chhannulal(PW—1)furtherdeposedthathelodged} the^{FirstInformationReport-(Ex.P-1)inPoliceStationRanchirai.}

¶76

af/

¶77

¶78

ASI Manharan Banafar (PW-13)^{deposedthathereachedthe} place^{ofoccurrence,} gave^{notice(EXP-3)toPanchasandprepared} the inquest (EX.P—4)^{onthedeadbodyofthedeceased} in presence of Executive Magistrate/Naib-Tahsildar R.P.Anchala (PW-9). R.P.Anchala (PW-9) deposed that inquest (Ex.P-4) was prepared. He further deposed that^{thedeadbodyofthedeceasedwas} lying inside the house, multiple^{incisedinjurieswere} present^onherbody and blood was oozing out. He'further deposed that the deceased had sustained injuries on temporai region near left eye, left elbow and wrist.

¶79

Patwari Dinesh Kumar Sahu (PW-10) deposed that he prepared site map (Ex.P—10).^From perusal of Ex.P-10, it appears that the place of^{occurrencewasthehouseoftheappellantandthe} deceased was residing^{withtheappellantthere.}

¶80

In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan^{vs.StateofMaharashtra,} (2006) 10 SCC 681, the Hon’ble^{SupremeCourtobservedthus:}

¶81

“14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances^wherethe assailants have all the opportunity^to plan^{andcommittheoffenceat} the time and in circumstances of^theirchoice, it will be extremely difficult for^the prosecution^{toleadevidenceto} establish the guilt of^theaccused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished.^A judge^{alsopresidestoseethataguiltyman} does not escape. Both^are public^duties. (See^Stirlandv. Director of Pub/ic Prosecutions^{1—quotedwithapproval} by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail^Singh2.) The law does not enjoin^adutyonthe prosecution^tolead

¶82

¶83

¶84

evidence of such^{characterwhichisalmost‘impossibleto} be Ied or at^{anyrateextremelydifficulttobeled.Theduty} on the prosecution is to Iead such evidence^which it is of leading, having regard to the facts and capable circumstances^{ofthecase.Here} it is necessary^tokeepin mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act^which says that when any fact is especially^{withintheknowledgeofany} person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

¶85

Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside^{ahouse,theinitialburdentoestablishthe} case would undoubtedly^beuponthe prosecution,^butthe nature and amount^{ofevidencetobe} led it to establish the charge^{cannotbeofthesamedegreeas} is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be^{ofacomparativelylightercharacter.} In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding^{burdenontheinmatesofthehousetogive} a cogent^{explanationastohowthecrimewascommitted.} The inmates of the house cannot get^away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the to establish its case supposed premise^{thattheburden} lies entirely^uponthe prosecution^{andthereisnodutyat} all on an accused^{toofferanyexplanation.} In State of^{RajasthanVS.Kashiram,(2006)12SCC254,} Supreme^{Courtobservedthus:} “19. ..............whether^{aninferenceoughttobedrawn} under Section^{106EvidenceActisa} question^whichmust be determined^{byreference.to} proved. lt is ultimately^a matter of appreciation of’evidence^and, therefore, each case must rest^{onitsownfacts.} 23. ...............^The principle is well settled. The of Section 106 of the Evidence^Act itself are provisions unambiguous^{andcategdricinlayingdownthatwhenany}

¶86

In State of^{RajasthanVS.Kashiram,(2006)12SCC254,the} Hon’ble Supreme^{Courtobservedthus:}

¶87

¶88

fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is Iast seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an expianation which appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. 'lf he does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his epical knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. ln a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throwany light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.

¶89

These principles have been further reiterated in the matter of State of Rajasthan^-—vs- Parthg, AIR 2008 S.C. 10.

¶90

ln the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that at the time of incident, the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence. He was working in the field of Devlal (PW-6) since 8 O’clock. According to the prOSecution, the incident took place at about 10 a.m.

¶91

¶92

The appellant took a^{specificdefenceofalibi,therefore,} it was for him to prove the same under Sections 11 and 103 of the Evidence Act.

¶93

Devlal (PW-6) deposed that 5 days prior to the date of incident, he had engaged^{theappellantforlabourworkofferinghim} remuneration of^Rs.1,600/— per^month.On 10-11—2006, he and^the appellant brought a^{bullock-carttohisByara} (granary)^andatabout 10 a.m., the appellant, saying that he will return after sometime, went away from^{there,buthedidnotreturn.Atabout} 1 p.m.,^Johan came to him, asked about the appellant^and he told him that the appellant killed^hiswife (the^{deceased).Hespecificallydeposedthat} the appellant worked with him till 1O a.m. only, thereafter, the appellant had gone^{awayanddidnotreturn.} 21. In the instant case, the appellant took^the plea^thathewas working with Devlal (PW-6) from^8a.m. to nearabout^12noon— 1 p.m., but Devlal (PW-6)^{specificallydeposedthattheappellanthad} gone^{awayatabout10a.m.anddidnotreturn.} Therefore, the plea of alibi taken^{bytheappellantisnotacceptable.}

¶94

Firoz (PW-4) specifically^{deposedthattheappellantcameto} the house^ofBabulal (PW-2)^{andtookhischildtohishouseback.} Soon thereafter, the deceased also went to the house of the appellant behind^{him.Hefurtherdeposedthatatabout12noon,he} went to the^{houseoftheappellantandopenedthedoor.} He saw there that the^{deceasedwaslyingdead.Therefore,} it is proved that the appellant^{hadtakenhischildfromthehouseofBabulal(PW—2)} to his house, the deceased had also gone to the house of the

¶95

¶96

appeHant just behind him and after sometime, the deceased was found dead in the house^{oftheappeliant.} It appearS‘that at the time of incident, only the appellant^{andthedeceasedwere} present^inthe house of the appellant and thereafter^{theappellantranaway.} The evidence of Firoz (PW-4)^{iscogentandreliable.}

¶97

The appellant was not able^to, prove^{hisdefenceofalibi.} The appellant failed to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on^{himandhedidnotthrowanylightuponthefacts} which were in his^knowledge. He has not thrown any light^astohow the deceased was killed and how she received^injuriesand in what circumstances the^incidenttook place^{inwhichthedeceaseddieda} homicidal death.^{Onthecontrary,heranawayfromthehouseitself} by closing the door and^{leavingthechildaloneinsidethehouse.} 24. In the light of above^{discussion,wedonotfindanyinfirmityin} the finding recorded by^{thelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudgethatit} was the appellant who caused the injuries on the body of the ‘ deceased with the Tangiya/Gainti and the deceased died on account of the injuries^{causedbytheappellant.}

¶98

The appeal is devoid^ofmerit; it deserves to be and^ishereby

¶99

dismissed.

¶100

Sd/- l
SUNIL KUMAR SINHA /"<br>Judge ,1. <br>

¶101

Sd/-
R.s. SHARMA
Judge

Manoj Kumar Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Chamaru Korwa Vs State

Firatram Banaj @ Nanki Dau and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bholu @ Vijay Pratap Singh

Madan Gopal Vs the State of M.P.

Manmohan Vs State of M.P.

Lalaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh