Dismissed

Sangram Singh @ Sangram @ Ashok v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2012CRA/693/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a special appeal questioning a conviction for murder and life imprisonment. The court held that consistent eyewitness testimony and medical evidence established the appellant's intentional and brutal conduct, finding no illegality requiring interference.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed maintaining conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.

Sangram Singh @ Sangram @ Ashok Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR}

¶2

Division Bench

¶3

Coram: Hon’ble Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar,^JJ.

¶4

Criminal ApEai No.693^of2004

¶5

Appellant Sangram Singh, alias^Sagramalias (in jail) Ashok, aged about²⁸ years,^sonof — Budhnath Khadiya, occupation cultivation resident of village Ki'uaanonsmgibahar, P.s. Tapkara, Distt. Jashpur (Chhattisgarh). $‘T Respondent State of Chhattisgarh^through P.S. A Tapkara, Distt. Jashpur, (CG).

¶6

(Criminal^{AppealunderSection374(2)oftheCr.P.C.)}

¶7

Present:

¶8

Shri A.N. Bhakta, counsel forthe appeiiant. Shri Ashish Gupta,^Pane!Lawyer forth}. State.

¶9

. JUDGMENT

¶10

(Delivered^on1-12-2012)

¶11

Per T.P. Sharma.^J.

¶12

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgmeni cf conviction and order of sentence dated^9-8-2004 passed^{bySessionsJudge,Jashpur,} in Sessions Trial No.347/2000 whereby^{andwhereunderlearnedSessionsJudgeafter} holding the appellant guilty^{forcausinghomicidaideathamountingtomurder} of Jankuram, convicted him under^{Section302oftheIPC} and sentenced shim to undergo imprisonment^{forlifeandfineofRs.20,000/—,} in default of payment^{offinetofurtherundergoRIfortenm;:.ths.}

¶13

Conviction^{oftheappellantisimpugnedonthegroundthatwithout} any iota of evidence,^{thecounbeiowhasconvictedandsentencedtheappellantas} aforementioned^{andtherebycommittedillegality.}

¶14

As per^caseof prosecution,^{onfatefuldayof21—1—2000atabout3p.m.,} his cattle^{andonaccountof}

¶15

unfortunate^{deceasedJankuramwasgrazmg} h^*n, thereafter^hewentto his

¶16

dispute relating to sotl appellant^assaulted house and^{camebackWithspadeandcaused} iatal injuries by spade^over his hand leg, head^{andchoppedhisleftlegandhedied.} The incident^has been^{wrtnessedbyPWI1} Manlyaro PW/2^Shriram PW/3^Sunlta Bar and PW/4^Ttluryaram.

¶17

¶18

Tapkara^{andlodgedfirstinformation} PW/2^{ShrlramwenttoPoliceStation} repor‘t Vid‘e Ex Pl2 merg^was recorded Vide EX^P13 lnvestigating Officer after summoning S R Dhritlahare (PW/1^{1)leftforsceneofoccurenceand} the Witnesses Vide Ex P/4 inquest over dead body^was prepared Vide Ex.P/5, bloodstained soil and plain s0il were seized from the spot Vide D^“f , photographs^ofthedead Ex.P/13, spot map^was prepared^videEx body of deceased^were seized vide Ex.P/1C, dead body was sent for autopsy^{toPrimaryHealthCentre,TapkaravideEXP/26whereDoctorB.C.} Paikra (PW/7) conducted autopsy vide EXP/27 and found the following

¶19

injuries.

¶20

i)	.xf Lacerated ^{wound - abrasion over right side of} the forehead ^{4cm x} 1/2 cm x 11; om;
ii)	Lacerated ^{wound below th‘e chi} 3cm x2 ^{cm x1} cm;
iii)	Lacerated ^{wound over midd'e of the right arm} Size 1 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm With ^{fracture over right} hand
	Left leg ^{imputed below the knee.}
	Lacerated ^{wound — abrasion over left leg 3cm} x1/2
	Lacerated ^{wound over right thigh 3cm x} 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm with fracture of bone;

¶21

vii) Fracture of frontal bone ruptured, brain membrane; viii) Fracture of right side of scalp bone, right ’bone, tibia fibuia, right finger. Doctor opined that^{modeofdeathwascoma} due to head injury and^{deathwashomicidalin} nature. r4

¶22

During the course^{ofinvestigation,appellantwastakenintocustodyandhe} l made a disclosure^{statementofspadevideEXP/8andsamewasrecovered} at the^iinstance of the appellant vide Ex.P/9, sealed clothes of deceased l were setted vide Ex.P/1^{1,clothesofappellantwereseizedvideEx.P/12and} l l seizediarticles were^{sentforchemicalexaminationvideEx.P/35.}

¶23

¶24

After icompletion of^{~investigation,} charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the court of Chief^Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur, who in turn‘ committed the case^{totheCourtofSessionsJudge,Raigarh.Aftercreation} of new} sessions division^atJashpur, the case was tried^{atSessionsJudge,} Jashpur.

¶25

¶26

In order to prove^the guilt^{oftheappellant,} prosecution^{examinedasmany} as 11 witnesses. Accused/appellant^{wasexaminedunderSection313of} the Code of Criminal Procedure, where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and innocence and false implication in crime in s question^isclaimed.

¶27

¶28

After affording opportunity^{ofhearingtothe} parties,^learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced^{theappellantasaforementioned.}

¶29

¶30

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record^{ofthetrialcourt.}

¶31

¶32

1b. Shri A.N. Bhakta, learned counsel^{appearingfortheappellantsubmitsthat} although conviction is based on the evidence^{ofsolitaryeye-witnessPW/1} Maniyaro, PW/2 Shriram,^{PW/3SunitaBaiand-PW/4Thuiyaram.,but} their evidence is contradictory to each^{otherandtheirevidencedoesnotinspire}

¶33

¶34

é?

¶35

confidence^{andtrustworthyandsameisnotsafetorelyforconvictionofthe} appellant. Evidence adduced^{onbehalfofthe} prosecution is not sufficient for drawing inference that appellant has caused homicidai death of deceased. He further submits that there was no^{intentionandmotiveand} the incident^took place,^without pre-meditation on account^{ofIanddispute} ”therefore, on sudden provocation, if the evidence of prosecution is considered^{initsfacevalue,thentheactattributedtotheappellantdoesnot} travelibeyond^{thescopeofSection} 304 Partⁱⁱ of^theIPC. On the other^{hand,ShriAshishGuptahearnedPanelIawyeronbehalfofthe} State5opposed^{theappealandsubmittedthattheevidenceofeye-witnesses} PW/1‘g Maniyaro,^{PW/2Shriram,PW/3SunitaBaiandPW/4Thuiyaram} are sufficient ior drawing inference that the appellant has caused homicidal deathj with intent^{tocausedeathofdeceasedJankuram.} After chopping^the left leg of deceased, appellant has^{shownthesametothe} persons^who were present^nearthe place^{ofincidentwhichshowsbrutalandmerciless} act of the appellant^{andsamearesufficient} for drawing inference^thatthe appellant has^{caused‘homicidaldeathwith} intent to cause his death. The court below^{afterappreciatingtheevidenceavailableonrecordhasrightly} convicted and^{sentencedtheappellantasaforementioned.}

¶36

In order to appreciate^{theargumentsadvancedonbehalfoftheparties,we} K; have examined^{theevidenceavailableonrecord.}

¶37

ln the present^{case,homicidaldeathasaresultof} injuries found^overthe body of deceased Jankuram has not been^{substantiallydisputedonbehalf} of the appellant; on the other hand, same is also established by the evidence of PW/9 Dr. B.C. Paikra and autopsy report vide Ex.P/27 that death of deceased Jankuram was^{homicidalinnature.} As regard complicity of the appellant in crime in question is concerned, conviction^{issubstantiallybasedontheevidenceof} PW/1 Maniyaro, PW/2 \ Shriram, PW/3^{SunitaBaiandPW/4Thuiyaram,whowerepresentonthe}

;

spot. As per evidence^{ofPW/1Maniyaro,} unfortunate deceased Jankuram was grazing his cattle, at that time, appeilant came there and took deceased to ditch, thereafter some altercation^took place^betweenthem. Appeiiant assauited by spade over the^head of the deceased and after chopping the Ieg^{ofdeceasedJankuram,hehasshownthechoppedlegto} themi Her evidence^{findscorroborationfromtheevidenceofPW/2Shriram,} PW/3 Sunita Bai and^{PW/4Thuiyaram.} Defence has cross examined^these witnesses in detaii and they have specificaily deposed that they were i present^{onthespotandtheyhavese'entheincident.} Appeilant assauited the degeased by spade and after^{choppingtheIegofdeceased,hehas} shoWn the same to^them. These evidences find support^from promptiy lodged first informatipn^{reportvideEx.P/2and} medical evidence which are sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant has caused homicidal death of deceased^Jankuram. The manner in which incident took place, multiple injuries found^{overbodyofhedeceased,showingthechoppedleg} of deceased, shows that the appellant has caused homicidal death of deceased with intent to cause his death and has acted brutally and mercilessly. After appreciating the^{evidenceavailableonrecord,learnedSessionsJudge} has convicted and sentenced^{theappellantasaforementioned.}

¶42

‘ On close scrutiny of^{theevidence,wedonotfindanyillegalityorinfirmityin} thejudgment of^{convictionandorderof sentencerequiringanyinterference.} Consequently, the appeal^{beingdevoidofmeritisliabletobedismissedand}

¶43

is herby dismissed. ’ ' 7 gal.”

¶44

Ty.^Sharma Judge

¶45

¶46

sal-
R.N.Chandrakar
Judge

¶47

Raju

Sangram Singh @ Sangram @ Ashok v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Singh @ Sangram @ Ashok 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of M.P. Vs Marshal and Ors.

Dhaniram Sona and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgar Vs Chhediram and Anr.

Sudru and Ors. Vs State

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rameshwar Prasadn Gabel and Ors.

Barsati Lal Yadav Vs Amar Bahadur Singh and Ors.