Dismissed

Prem Mohan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jul 2013CRA/554/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenging a life sentence for murder was dismissed. The High Court upheld the conviction based on the testimony of four eyewitnesses and medical evidence, finding no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and life sentence upheld; no further order for surrender or arrest required as appellant in jail.

Prem Mohan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

•^f

¶2

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

¶3

AT BILASPUR (CGl

¶4

CMMINALAPPEAL N0. S5^ l 2012 (D.B.)

<-.-!

APPELLANT

(In_.LalU

ggted-"-"""

•nN*

Prein Mohan S/o Harun Mahra (Christian), aged about 45 years, R/o VUlage - - Markel, Police Station Nagamar, District- Bastar, New address Naya Munda Danteshwari Ward, Jagdalpur, PoUce StationBodhghat, DistrictBastar

(Chhattisgarh)

VERSUS

.J'\

RESPONDENT

State of Chhattisgarh: Through - Station House Officer, Police StationBodhghat, DistrictBastar

¶17

(Jagdalpur) (C.G.)

¶18

CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF

¶19

THE CODE OF CMMINAL PROCEDURE

¶20

--<;

¶21

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶22

CORAM: HON. SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J. &

¶23

HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J

Cr.A.No. S54of2012

AppeUant Prem Mohan

VERSUS

d...

Respondent State of CG

¶29

Present: Shri C.P.Laharey, 'counsel for the appellant. Shri N.Naha Roy, P.L for the State.

¶30

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CRIMINAJ^ PROCEDURE CODE

¶31

JUDGMENT (11.07.2013)

¶32

This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 19.08.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in S.T. No. 56/2008 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC sentencing him. to undergo iinprisoninent for life with fine ofRs. 1,000 plus default stipulation.

¶33

In the case in hand deceased is Karan Kumar who died on 21.3.08 after sustaining injuries on his head and neck. On 21.3.08 dehati ncdishi (Ex. P-1) was recorded at the instance of Hema Dewangan (PW-1) wife of the deceased,who has alleged fhat on that day at about 10.30 p.m her husband left his house by saying that he would retum within ten minutes and after about half an hour when she heard some noise outside she ceune out and asked one of the villager, then. Ramesh informed her that accused/appellant Prem Mohan assaulted her husband Karan Kumar with axe on his head and 'neck and blood was coming out from the injuries. She has stated that immediately she weat to the

¶34

-£T

¶35

place of occurrence and saw her husband drenched in blood, she took him to hospital where he was declared dead. She has further stated that the accused/appellant kiUed her husband because of old enmity between them. It is further alleged by her thaf the incident has been witnessed by Ramesh (PW-3). Kejuram (PW-4) Kishore (PW-5) and Asha Bai (PW-2) and other persons. After death of the deceased merg intimation (Ex.P-12) was recorded on 21.3.08 and then on the next day i.e. 22.3.08 FIR (Ex.P-13) was registered against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC. Postmortem exainination on the body of deceased karanKumar was conducted on 24.03.08 vide Ex.P-8 by Dr. Sandeep Singh (PW-6) and according to hun cause pf death was shock due to excessive bleeding. After investigation, charge sheet was filed on 16.04.08 against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and accordingly charges were framed.

¶36

In order to establish the guilt of fhe accused/appellant, prosecution has examined 09 witnesses. Stateinent of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

¶37

After hearing the parties, the trial Court by judgment irapugned has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aientioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Hence the present . appeal.

¶38

Contention of Shri Laharey, counsel for the appeUanf is that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated on account of old enmity between him and the deceased. He submits that the so called eyewitnesses to the incident are close relatives of the deceased and that is why they have falsely implicated the accused/appellant. He further submits that even ifthe entire case is taken as it is accused/appellant cannot be convicted under

¶39

¶40

Section 302 IPC as he had no intention to commit murder of the deceased and his only intention could be to cause some injury to fhe deceased.

¶41

On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by Shri Roy, State counsel that the conviction of the appellant is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirniity in the same. He submits that Asha Bai (PW-2) Ramesh Gaikwad (PW-3), Kejuram Verma (PW-4) and Kishore (PW-5) are the eyewitnesses to the incident and they have fully supported the prosecution case.

¶42

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

¶43

Heina Dewangan (PW-1) - wife of deceased and lodger of dehati nalishi (Ex. P-1) has stated that on the date of incident i.e.21.3.08 it was holi and her husband went for holika dahan (bonBre). She has stated that after sometime, she heard some noise and saw accused/appellant Prem Mohan runrung away from the spot canying axe whereas Kishore and other villagers were chasing him and whenshe went to the place of incident, she saw her husband lying in the ground in a pool of blood and thereafter she lifted her husband, took hitn to hospital in a rickshaw. Asha Bai (PW-2) has stated that she knew the deceased and the accused/appeUant and on the date of incident, viUagers gathered for 'hoUka dahan' where the deceased was also present, at that time accused/appellaht took the deceased with him behind the tree and assaulted with axe on his head and neck. She has stated that thereafter deceased was takeri to hospital where he was declared dead. In cross-examination she remained veiy Erin and nothing could be eUcited from her. Ramesh Gaikwad (PW-3), Kejuram Verma (PW-4) and Kishore (PW-5) are the other eyewitnesses who have made almost similar statement as has

¶44

been made by Hema Dewangan (PW-1). These witnesses have categorically stated that they saw the accused/appeUant causing injuries to deceased Karan Kuinar as a result ofwhich he died. Dr. Sandeep Singh (PW-6) is the autopsy surgeon who conducted postraortem exainination on the. body of deceased Karan vide Ex.P-8 and according to hiin cause of death was shock.due to excessive bleeding. S.R. Lahare (PW-7) recorded dehati nalishi (Ex.P-1), merg intimation (Ex.P-12) and he also recorded FIR (Ex. P-13). G.S. Singh (PW-8) is the Investigating Officer who has duly supported the prosecution case. Kalicharan (PW-9) is the seizure witness to Ex.P-5 by which blood stained axe and clothes of the accused/appellant were seized whereas vide Ex. P-6 blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized. He is also a witness to arrest of accused/appellant vide Ex. P-3. However, this witness has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.

¶45

Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on 21.3.08, accused/appeUant comniitted murder ofthe deceased by causing injuries on his head and neck. The incident has been witaessed by four eyewitnesses namely Asha Bai (PW-2) Ramesh Gaikwad (PW-3), Kejuram Verma (PW-4) and Kishore (PW-5) who have categorically stated that it is the accused/appellant who cominitted the murder of deceased Karan Kumar. Apart from this, the doctor who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased has stated that the.injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the seized axe

¶46

Considering the evidence avaUable against the accused/appellant we are of the view that the Court below has rightly convicted the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and this Court also does not find any reason to kiterfere with the same.

¶47

In the result, the appeal has no substance and therefore is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed as such. The appellant is in jail and therefore no further order for his surrender or arrest is required. '

¶48

ChiefJustice 1

¶49

Sd/Pritinker Diwaker Judge

¶50

Suguna

¶51

^ _.J

Prem Mohan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Mohan 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

Pradeep Singh Thakur Vs State Of C.g.

Chain Singh Pendre Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shahdeo Singh Vs Union Of India And Ors.

Harishankar Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chandramouleshwar Singh and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bisaru Baiga Vs State of Chhattisgarh