Dismissed

Uttara Kumar Banjare v. State

Chhattisgarh HC4 Sept 2014CRA/1347/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the appeal by the appellant against his conviction for murder. The court upheld the trial court's findings based on uncontradicted eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence, finding no infirmity in the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; bail is cancelled; the appellant is directed to be arrested and sent to jail.

Uttara Kumar Banjare Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

•i 'i ^

¶2

'w : ll li

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J

¶5

Criminal Appeal No. 1347 of 2000

¶6

APPELLANT Uttara Kumar

¶7

aasss^ssys ^isE^^

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh

¶10

Smt. Savita Tiwari, counsel for the appellant.

¶11

Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, PLforthe respondent/State.

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

(04.09.2014)

¶14

This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 28.02.2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 271/1999 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rl for six months.

¶15

As per the prosecution case, on 18.05.1999 the accused/appellant and his wife namely Krantibai (deceased) had gone to the house of Uttarabai (PW-6) sister of the deceased and on that day they stayed there. It is alleged that on the next day i.e. 19.05.1999 the accused/appellant had asked his wife (deceased) to accompany him to his house which was refused^{bythedeceasedandshewas} insisting to go to her maternal house at village Khapri. On this, the

^•fcK

accused/appellant got annoyed with the deceased and assaulted her by carpenter axe, thereby causing her one incised wound and two contusions resulting in her spontaneous death. Initially unnumbered FIR (Ex. P-8) was lodged on 19.05.1999 by Deenbandhu (PW-5) brother-in-law (Jija) of the deceased at outpost - Midhpuri, Police Station - Palari and thereafter, numbered FIR (Ex. P-12) was registered against the accused/appellant at Police Station - Palari. On 20.05.1999 postmortem examination on the body ofthe deceased was conducted by Dr. F.R. Nirala (PW-2) who gave his report (Ex. P-2) opining that the cause of death was shock due to head injury and excessive bleeding and the death was homicidal in nature. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and thereafter the charge was also framed accordingly.

¶21

!<<<

¶22

In order to establish the guilt of the accused/appellant the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

¶23

After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above. Hence the present appeal.

¶24

Counsel for the accused/appellant submits as under:

¶25

. (i) That the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated by

¶26

•\

¶27

¶28

the brother-in-law (PW-5) and sister (PW-6) of the deceased and their statements are full of contradictions.

¶29

(ii) That even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, considering the fact that there was no premeditation on the pari: of the accused/appellant for committing murder of the deceased, the incident occurred all of a sudden in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, the weapon of offence - carpenter axe - used by the appellant was lying on the spot, the case of the accused/appellant is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder and as such, at best he is liable to be convicted under Section 304 PartlloflPC.

¶30

i^teaiH''-

¶31

On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and argues that conviction of the accused/appellant is strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. It has been further argued that Deenbandhu (PW-5) and Uttarabai (PW-6) are the eye-witnesses to the incident and they have categorically stated as to the manner in which the accused/appellant had killed the deceased. On the basis of memorandum (Ex. P-5) of the accused/appellant, seizure of carpenter axe was made under (Ex. P-6) and as per FSL report (Ex. P-19) blood was found on the same.

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

(PW-1) Basant is the witness to seizure of bicycle made under

¶35

¶36

Z-,

¶37

:? 11''^^

¶38

39 s.•»?

¶39

lAtisSiteNl

¶40

(Ex. P-1). (PW-2) Dr. F.R. Nirala conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased and gave his report (Ex. P-2) stating therein that he noticed four injuries on her body and opined that the cause of death was shock due to head injury and excessive bleeding and the death was homicidal in nature. (PW-3) Mahetar Lal is the Patwari who prepared spot map (Ex. P-4). (PW-4) Parasram, a witness to memorandum of the accused/appellant (Ex. P-5) and seizure ofcarpenter axe made under (Ex. P-6), has admitted recording of memorandum (Ex. P-5) ofthe accused/appellant but has denied the seizure of carpenter axe made under (Ex. P-6). However, he has admitted his signature on these documents. (PW-5) Deenbandhu - the brother-in-law (Jija) of the deceased and lodger of FIR (Ex. P-8) has stated that on 18.05.1999 the accused/appellant and the deceased had come to his house and stayed there. He has stated that at the time of incident he was cutting mangoes by carpenter axe and after doing the same the carpenter axe was put beneath the cot. Thereafter, the accused/appellant came there and asked the deceased to go along with him to his house but the deceased refused to accompany him and she insisted to go to her matrimonial house. He has stated that the accused/appellant being annoyed picked up the carpenter axe which was lying there and gave axe blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which she fell down and thereafter he again gave blow on her stomach. In cross-examination this witness remained very firm. (P.W-6) Uttarabai is the sister of the deceased and other eye-witness to the incident, she too has categorically stated that on the date of iRcident the accused/appellant and the deceased came to her house

¶41

¶42

u n'll

¶43

and when the deceased refused to accompany the accused/appellant she was done to death by the accused/appellant by assaulting her with carpenter axe. (PW-8) Brijlal is the witness to seizure of plain and blood stained soil made under (Ex. P-11). (PW-9) Bhulau is the witness to inquest notice (Ex. P-12) and inquest (Ex. P-13). (PW-10) Nandkumar is the police constable who made seizure of certain articles under (Ex. P-14 and P-15). (PW-11) Teejbai, the neighbour of Deenbandhu (PW-5), has not stated anything specific against the accused/appellant and has been declared hostile. (PW-12) Ashwini Kumar is the witness to seizure of bicycle made under (Ex. P-1). (PW13) Dwarika Prasad Shriwas is the witness who recorded numbered FIR (Ex. P-12) and merg intimation (Ex. P-13). (PW-14) Panchram Sahu is the witness at whose instance merg intimation (Ex. P-13) was recorded on which basis the numbered FIR (Ex. P-12) was registered. (PW-15) Jeevan is the witness to seizure of carpenter axe made under (Ex. P-6). Though he has turned hostile but has admitted his signature on this document. (PW-16) Chhatar Singh and (PW-17) Rajni are the witnesses to inquest notice (Ex. P-12) and inquest (Ex. P-13). (PW-18) Darshan Singh Maravi is the Investigating Officer who has duly supported the case ofthe prosecution.

¶44

Minute examination of the evidence on record makes it clear that it is the accused/appellant who killed his wife namely Krantibai. Deenbandhu (PW-5) - brother-in-law (Jij'a) and Uttarabai (PW-6) - sister of the deceased are the eye-witnesses to the incident and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution and have described as 'to the manner in which the deceased was murdered by the

¶45

l;'i 1~-

¶46

¶47

trS • ;'.. il' I:'n''

¶48

accused/appellant. Further, on the basis of the memorandum (Ex. P-5) of the accused/appellant, seizure of carpenter axe was made under (Ex. P-6) and as per FSL report (Ex. P-19) blood was found on the same.

¶49

W^e£S3SSSU

¶50

Thus, considering the unrebutted eyewitnesses account, which finds due corroboration from the medical evidence also, the manner in which the accused/appellant assaulted the deceased, the weapon of offence used, the part of the body where the assault was made and the force with which the assault was made leading to instantaneous death of the deceased, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The findings recorded by it are based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and hence there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned warranting interference by this Court.

¶51

Appeal thus being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed assuch. As the accused/appellant is on bail, bail granted to hjm is hereby cancelled and he is directed to be arrested forthwith and sent to jail for sen/ing out remaining part of the

¶52

sentence imposed on him.

Sd/-

Chief Justice

_..—--

Sd/Pritinker Diwaker Judge T.TuOgC

¶57

Uttara Kumar Banjare v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttara Kumar Banjare v. State

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

Radheshyam @ Bodu Vs State

Smt.Phool Bai Jhariya Vs State

Sobran Vs the State of M.P.

Barnavas Vs State

Brijendra Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Purushottam Yadav Vs Union Of India And Ors.