Dismissed

Chandresh Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Dec 2014CRA/9/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed four criminal appeals challenging convictions for murder in an unlawful assembly. The Court upheld the Sessions Court's finding that the evidence, primarily from the deceased's brother and corroborated witnesses, sufficiently established that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons to murder the deceased.

What did the court decide?

All criminal appeals were dismissed, maintaining the conviction and sentence.

Chandresh Bhoi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

Dlvtelon Bench

¶2

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS&MRH

¶3

AT BILASPUR

¶4

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. ^ (D.B.)
APPELLANT Chandresh Bhoi, S/o Brij Lal
(In^Jail) /g^,..S-9 Bhoi, aged about 26 years,
•\ R/o Katiyapara, Police
^••-''.^"^..VT'^^.^t<t.^..-"' ^T' Station City Kotwali, Distt.
v^'^&^"'^'"
-^iff'""1
^..--^ Bilaspur (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh.
Through:- District Magistrate,
Bilaspur, Distt. -Bilaspur
(C.G.)

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. 1973

¶7

"^^
l^s
/'"^A^.
&r- 8 ls"'i '..

¶8

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI T.P.SHARMA AND
HON'BLE SHRI I.S UBOWEJA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 901 of 2009
APPELLANT: Jitu Bhoi
Versus
RESPONDENT: Stata pf Chhattisgarh
CritDinal ApDeal No.SO'T-Of 2009
^PRBLLANTS: 1. NanuVerma °" ' s
i .] 2. Bajrang Yadav
'?i??'3;iyaSuChaudhary
!
''iK^-'.^RaJsndra,
Versus
RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh
CriiTiinalApoeal No.926 of 2009
APPELLANTS: 1. Dharmendra Verma
2. Basant Verma
Versus
RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh
AND
Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010
APPELLANT: Chandresh Bhoi
Versus
RESPONDENT: State of Chhattisgarh
{Criminal appeals underSection 374 (2) ofthe Code ofCriminal
Procedure, 1973}

¶9

y!VSp..7-''S^!s^SSS'05^ S'^!SS>:^-^^:^ .::J-^

¶10

^?3^^^^^i^i"^^

¶11

Pafl^%of11l,

¶12

Cr.A.Nos.901/2009, 907/2009. 926/2009 & 9/2010

¶13

Appearance:

¶14

¶15

Mr. Somnath Verma with Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the appellant in Cr.A.No.901/2009.

¶16

Mrs. Kiran Jain.counsel forthe appellantin Cr.A.No.9/2010, appellant No.1 in Cr.A.No.926/2009 and appellantsNo.1 &4 in Cr.A.No.907/2009.

¶17

Mr; G.S. Ahluwalia, counsel for appellants No.2 & 3 in Cr.A.No.907/2009. Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, counsel for appellant No.2 in Cr.A.No.926/2009.

¶18

Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate for the State/respondent.

¶19

JUDGMENT ^ #a (3-12-2014) ^^ T.P. Sharma.J'::ie 1. ri%»^ 'K'" "' •- "- °" s s §?jt^;,r

¶20

I.AGrX.Nds.901/2009, 907/2009, 926/2009 & 9/2iMOSfi(|d against judgment ysflated 12-10-2009 passed byihe 1stAdditionalSessiOns>)Bclge, Bilaspur in

¶21

%,s Sessions Trial No.lSyZQOSare being disposed of by thisc6mrn6h judgment.

¶22

By filing aforesaid foUr'Brtntihal^ppeals, the appellants have challenged tegafity andproprietyW'Weyjdgment of conviction & order of sentence

¶23

dated12-10-2009 passed by^ttie1stAdditional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.18/2Q09j whereby & whereunder learried Additional Sessions Judge after holdihg the appellants guilty for formation of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapbns having its common object to commit murder of Mukesh @ Mukku and in furtherance of common object of the assembly for committing the murder of Mukesh @ Mukku, convicted the appellants under Sections 148 & 302 read with Section 149 ofthe IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for three years and imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default additional Rl for one month, respectively.

¶24

Conviction is impugned on the ground thatwithout there being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants and thereby committed an illegality.

¶25

As per case of the prosecution, on the fateful intervening night of 22-9-2008 and 23-9-2008, deceased Mukesh @ Mukku was not present in house, his father Kartik Singh (PW-6) and brother Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5) were searching for MukesH, when brother^{ofthedeceasedDineshSinghThakur}

¶26

PageSoFTI

¶27

Cr.A.Nos.901/2009, 907/2009. 926/2009 & 9/2010

¶28

(PW-5) reached near Udai Chowk, he saw that some persons surrounded one person and causing injury then he reached near the place of incident Where he saw that appellant Nanu Verma was holding base ball bat, appellants Dharmendra Verma, Vasu Chaudhary, Jitu Bhoi, Rajendra Verma & Chandresh Bhoi were holding sword, appellartt Basant Verrna was holding stick, other persons were also present, they were assaulting Mukesh @ Mukku were abusing that he has quarrelled at the time of Ganesh Visarjan, therefore, they will not leave him, and they badly assaulted him. Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5) shouted for help andfor saving Mukesh @ Mukku, then Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7), Vikrant Shukla (PW-8), Abhijit Singh Thakur @ Rana (PW-9), Jacky @ Prakash Namdeo (PW-11), Ma®fB|hgE(|>%/|t2), Inat)(j|@ Kajju Yadav (PW-13) came on whicteith^laSp'e'llaHts fled away TrorTfttiie^iBlit,^ the same time, police ^igarBffarid took the dead body of Mukesh @ MuKKU||o|ClMS:H6spital where Wlewas declared dead, Withjh45 minutes of the 1ncidSnt,,j8b1 a.m.iOn 23yl' 9-20Q8, Dinesh SingtTlinai<ur^t:W/-5)lodged FIR vide E£|-yandmorgue vide Ex.P-6. Copy ofitt|e<FIR^Wsis sent to the Magistrate vide Ex.P-7C ^ which vras received byjtRg®ourt]1e6ncemedyide Ex.P-38. Spbt map was K?^,;'preparedVide Ex.P-39.'J'flt:ti Uy1^; ::.';^:' ";' .7?'^'l':,t-T'.'-:':^ ':j. ^':'y.::::: '••'

¶29

The investigating officer'ligftfel'tl'i&scene of occurrence. Aftersummoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-'B^jnCjUestover the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-1U.! Bloodstained and plain soil were recovered form thespotvideEx.P-12.

¶30

Dead body was sent for autopsy to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur vide Ex. P-4. Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra (PW-3) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-3 and found following injuries : - ;

¶31

Lacerated wound of7 c.m. X 3 c.m. on rightfrontal region

¶32

Lacerated wound of 12 c.m. X 11 c.m. bone deepon right temporal region.

¶33

Incised wound of 9 c.m. X 5 c.m. X 6 c.m. on right temporal part.

¶34

Incised wound of 6 c.m. X2 c.m. X 2 c.m. on fronto parietal bone.

¶35

Ineis'ed wound 11 c.m. X 3 c.m. X 4 c.m. on right bccipitat region.

¶36

Left forearm (temporal-occipital) bones are completely fractured.

¶37

Page4

¶38

-;,<'•;

¶39

Cr.A.Nos.901/2009, 907/2009. 926/2009 & 9/2010

¶40

Incised wounds 5 in number parallel to each other from elbow to wrist joint on frontal part of fore arm in the size of 7 c.m. x 8.5 c.m. x 0.6 c.m.

¶41

Some incised wounds crossing each other multiple in number (eleven) 26 c.m. X 12 c.m.X 0.2 c.m.

¶42

Abrasion on left arm anterior side to shoulder region 10 c.m. X 7.5 c.m.

¶43

C-.CC-*.

¶44

10-Abrasion on left knee 3 c.m. X 2 c.m.

¶45

Mode ofdeath was coma and death was homicidal in nature.

¶46

Patwari prepared spotflnap vide Ex.P-5. During the course of investigation, statement unaenSe(;tianl1®1»fthe^GrPC QfDinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5) was;,rgcor9e(l vide Ex.P-8 and statemen^ of StiaHanshu Agrahari (PW-7), lyikrant Shukla (PW-8), Abhijit Singh Thakur @ Banar,(PW-9), Jacky @ ;| Prakash Namdeo (FW-11)& Manqj Mishra (PW-12) wereirecorded on 1- 10-2008. . , •<:•;.l'I^£:'^;i.:i..;'; ";::

¶47

Theappellants wereAaKen intoVcustody on same day. Appellant Nanu Verma made disclosute Statement of baseball bat vide Ex.P-13 and same ' was recovered at his instancevicle Ex.P-19. Appellant Dharmendra Verma made disclosure statement ofsword vide Ex.P-14 and same was recovered at his instance videlEx.P-ZQ. Appellant Bajrang Yadav made disclosure statement ofstick vide Ex.P-15 andsame was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-21. Appellant Vasu Chaudhary made disclosure statement of sword vide Ex.P-16 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-22. Appellant Jitu Bhoi made disclosure statement of sword vide Ex.P-17 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-23. Appellant Basant Verma made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex.P-18 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-24. 'Appellant Chandresh Bhoi made disclosure statement of sword vide Ex.P-34 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex. P-32. Appellant Rajendra Verma made disclosure statement of sword vide Ex.P-35 and same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-33. Bloodstained cloths of appellant Nanu Verma were seized vide Ex.P-25. ^ Bloodstained cloths of appellant Dharmendra Verma were seized vide Ex.P-26. Bloodstained cloths of appellant Bajrang Yadav were seized vide / Ex. P-27. Bloodstained cloth& of appellant Vasu Chaudhary were seized

E. ^ 'K:. -^

Page

Cr.A.Nos.901/2009, 907/2009. 926/2009 & 9/2010

¶52

vide Ex.P-28. Bloodstained cloths of appellant Jitu Bhoi were seized vide Ex.P-29. Bloodstained cloths of appellant Basant Verma were seized vide Ex.P-30. Sealed clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-31. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, vide Ex.P-57 and presence of blood on the articles seized from the appellants was confirmed vide Ex.P-58. Statements ofthe witnesses were recorded under Section 161 ofthe CrPC.

¶53

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur, from where the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur received the case on transfer for trial.

¶54

10.1n orderto pr6v&Mie§uilt!bfthe^iccl.ised/appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The appellant&were examined under Section 313 ofthe CrPC in which they deniedthe cirCLtmstances appearing

¶55

' against them, pleaded;innocence)and false implicatioh ;in the crime in question.^{AppellanfBasa'hCVei-rtiaHas taken the defenceof alibi that at the} tim& of incident he wais not present on the spot, he was present in his house, his door was khocRearByttie police and other witnesses, and from there he was brought totHepolice station. ;

¶56

11.After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentericed the appellants as aforementioned.

¶57

12.We have heard learned couhsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and records ofthe Courts below.

¶58

Leamed counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that conviction of the appellants is substantially based on the evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5), Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7), Vikrant Shukla (PW-8), Abhijit Singh Thakur @ Rana(PW-9), Jacky@ Prakash Namdeo (PW-11), Manoj Mishra (PW-12) & Anand @ Kajju Yadav (PW-13). Ex.P-8, statement of Dinesh Singh Thakur(PW-5) under Section 161 ofthe CrPC, has been recorded on 23-9-2008 i.e. on the same day, but statements of Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7), Vikrant Shukla (PW-8), Abhijit Singh Thakur @ Rana (PW-9), Jacky @ PrakashNamdeo (PW-11)^&ManojMishra (PW-12)^havenot been recorded on^{thesamedayandrecordedon1-10-2008,aftermore} than one month. The prosecution has failed to offer explanation that why

,/t

.•^

^
Pag^oHl

Cr.A.Nos. 901/2009, 907/2009. 926/2009 & 9/2010

¶64

delay has been caused. These witnesses are of criminal antecedents, huge numbers of cases have been registered against them and they are close friends of deceased Mukesh @ Mukku who was also a man of criminal antecedents. Their evidence do not inspire confidence and are not trustworthy. Conviction based on aforesaid witnesses is not safe, though the trial Court has relied only on the evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW5) and not on the evidence of Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7), Vikrant Shukla (PW-8), Abhijit Singh Thakur @ Rana (PW-9), Jacky @ Prakash Namdeo (PW-11), Manoj Mishra (PW-12) & Anand @ Kajju Yadav (PW-13). Leamed counsel further argued that as per evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5), FIR Ex.P-7 & morgue Ex.P-6, incident took place at dark night, there was nci;fapi|itylof,light,i;Din6s^Singh Thakur (PW-5) was not in a position.to Withess the incident, and linknWn person has caused injuries ,,andyinurder of Mukku @ Mukesh, but on aSeQii.iht'of previous enmity y«specially on account tif dispute relating to Ganeshrvisarjan, these 3- appellants have been "Klsely imRlic^ted. Learned counsel also argued that all witnesses have deposed that they have witnessed the incident, but none ofthe wifnesseshasdepiQsed as?to who has caused injuries upon which part of body of the de£easedj,by which weapon though as per their evidence, they were present 6n the spot. This shows that they have not witnessed the incident.

¶65

14-Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon paras 2, 10, 14, 15, 16,21, 22, 23, 29, 30 & 37 of the evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5); paras 7 & 8 ofthe evidence of Kartik Singh (PW-6); paras 5,6,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 28, 33 & 36 of the evidence of Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7); paras 2, 5,10,12,15 &16 ofthe evidence of Vikrant Shukla (PW-8); paras 2, 26, 27, 31, 32 & 33 of the evidence of Abhijit Singh Thakur @ Rana (PW-9); paras 2 & 5 ofthe evidence ofJacky @ Prakash Namdeo (PW-11); paras 4, 6, 8,10, 11,16& 17 ofthe evidence ofManoj Mishra (PW-12); paras^{1,2,3,4,5,9,11&16oftheevidenceof} Anand @ Kajju Yadav (PW-13); and paras 28, 30, 43, 65, 66, 67 & 68 of the evidence of B.L. Mahobe (PW-14), investigating officer.

¶66

15.1n addition to the aforesaidsubmissions, learned counsel Mr. G.S. Ahluwalia & Mr. Dheerendra Pandey further submitted that appellant Basant Verma is not present on the spot, he was present in his house, his

¶67

¶68

Page 7 oni

¶69

Cr.A.Nos.901/2009, 907/2009. 926/2009 & 9/2010

¶70

door was knocked by the police and other witnesses then he came out from the house, thereafter, the police brought him to the police station and interrogated him. The prosecution has failed to prove his presence at the time of incident. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution hals failed to prove the factum of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and their common object to kill Mukku @ Mukesh. Learned counsel contended that at the worst, it was a caseof sudden provocation, the appellants were provoked by the attitude and act of the deceased at the time of Ganesh visarjan and that was the cause of causing injury, therefore, the act attributed to the appellants may be the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-1 ofthelPC. The appellants are in custody since 2008.

¶71

16.0n the otMeFAar«l,gtearHesdtSta^|t;6ynsel,opposed the appeals and submitted'thait evidence of Dinesh Singff THakyr(PW-5) supported by the ^dbcuments are sufficient fbr drawing inference that,?the;,appellants armed ^/with deadly weapons had formed.ynlawful assembly hayirtg its common •f object to commit tKejraiUi'd^r^ofiMukku @ Mukesh and irisfurtherance of common object of the[unlEivuful;assembly, they have mercilessly caused injuries to Mukku @ IVlukesh resUlting in his instantaneous death. Afdresaid evidence are sufficient td^establish the fact that the appellants have formed unlawful assembly WitlTra cofTimbn object to kill the deceased and in furtherance of that they have killed Mukku @ Mukesh. Therefore, by convicting the appellantg ttnder Sections 148 & 302 read with Section 149 ofthe IPC, the trial Court has notcommitted any illegality.

¶72

17.1n orderto appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf ofthe parties, we haveto examine the evidence adduced on behalfofthe prosecution.

¶73

18.1n the present case, homicidal death as a result offatal injuries found over the body of deceased Mukku @Mukesh has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, it is also established by evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5), Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7), Vikrant Shukla (PW-8),Abhijit Singh Thakur @ Rana (PW-9),^Jacky @^{PrakashNamdeo(PW-11),ManojMishra-(PW-12),Anand} @ Kaiju Yadav (PW-13), FIR Ex.P-7, morgue Ex.P-6, evidence of Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra (PW-3) and autopsy report Ex.P-3 that death of \ deceased Mukku @ Mukesh was homicidal in nature.

|m-

WRRBSaW^"1

Page'&flfll

Cr.A.Nos.901/2009, 907/2009. 926/2009 & 9/2010

¶80

19.As regards complicity of the appellants in the crime in question, cbnviction is substantially based on the evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5), brother of the deceased. The trial Court has not given weightage on the evidence of Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7), Vikrant Shukla (PW-8), Abhijit Singh Thakur @ Rana (PW-9), Jacky @ Prakash Namdeo (PW-11), Manoj Mishra (PW-12) & Anand @ Kajju Yadav (PW-13) on the ground thattheir statements under Section 161 of the CrPC have been recorded after more than one month ofthe incident. As per evidence ofthese witnesses, they are having criminal antecedents, they were present on the spot, they accompanied Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5) to the police station, they were very much present in thepolice station and they were present at the time of investigation,j?&u(|theiT|siJafeiments|[itiav it)Qt been recorded on same day and were^recEirdedon 1-10-2008 afterlapSffBf mOte than one month.

¶81

20.,As per evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5), HrothgRof the deceased, "Con the date of incident atabout 12at night, he was in Mis hduse, his father Kartik Singh (PW-S^direcfea Mrn toygo and search Mukku @ Mukesh then he went to search MukRi.i;@'Mttkesh, he saw that some persons were assaultingxine^>erson..ttiei')tie?Tgached nearthe place of incidentonwhich he saw that his brotheKiW^s^siirrounded by all the appellants and the appellants were assaultiriGptlim.?Appellaht Nanu Verma was holdipg bat of baseball, Dharmeridira Verma was^holding sword, Vasu'Chaydhary was also holding sword, Jitu BKoi wasalso holding sword, Rajendra Verma was also holding sword, Chandresh Bhoi was also holding sword, Basant Verma was holding stick and Bajrang Yadavwas also holding stick, and theywere assaulting Mukku @ Mukesh by aforesaid weapons. He shouted. At the time of causjng injury, the appellants were also shouting,^"kill him,^hehas disputed at the time of Ganesh visarjan". On hearing the shouts of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5), persoRS of the vicinity came to the spot then the appellants fled away from the spot. His brother was lying on the land, he saw injuries and at that time, police came. Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7) also came. Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5) mshed to his house and informed the incident to his father and others. Police took the body of Mukku @ Mukesh to CIMS hospital where he was declared dead then he lodged morgue Ex.P-6 and FIR Ex.P-7. Defence has cross-examined this witness at length. Defence has placed reliance upon paras 2, 10, 14, 15,16, 21,

y ^

PageSdf

Cr.A.Nos.901/2009, 907/2009. 926/2009 & 9/2010

¶86

22,23,29, 30 & 37 of the evidence of this witness. Aforesaid paragraphs of the evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5) virtually, are self-explanatory and Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5) has explained in detail the manner and mode of incident, how he reacted, what he has done and who came on the spot. There are no contradictions and omissions in the evidence of this witness with his statement recorded under Section 161 ofthe CrPC.

¶87

Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7), Vikrant Shukla (PW-8), Abhijit Singh Thakur @^Rana (PW-9),^Jacky @^{PrakashNamdeo} (PW-11),^ManojMishra (PW12) & Anand @ Kajju Yadav (PW-13) have substantially corroborated the evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5). Although their statements have been recorded after moreithaniOnemonth, but the fact remains that Dinesh Singh ThaKu&|;(l|hlV-S)|,t%|rr$enfion@djl.|heiisnames in the FIR Ex.P-7 recorded within45 minutes of incident. -TtteiKi'hames also find place in

¶88

s-|Ex.t3-8,^{statementofDineshSinghThakur} (PW-5)%6conded^{underSecition}

¶89

<,''yi161 of the CrPC, i.e, they are not strangers to the incidentland as per the investigating agenGy,an(^wilness Oinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5),' they were •

¶90

presenton'thespot.:';;,^cf.&^^^%

¶91

22.This is notthe case irT.wliic^coriviction is based only upon the evidenceof Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-y),^/il<rant Shukla (PW-8), Abhijit Singh Thakur @^Rana (PW-9),^{JacKy@;PrakashNamdeo} (PW-11),^ManojMishra (PW12) & Anand @ Kaiju^Yadav(PW-p) or that the investigating agency was not having knowledge about these witnesses that they have witnessed the incident, inter alia, the investigating agency was having knowledge that Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7), Vikrant Shukla (PW-8), Abhijit Singh^Thakur @^Rana (PW-9),^Jacky @^{PrakashNamdeo} (PW-11),Manoj^Mishra(PW- 12) & Anand @ Kajju Yadav (PW-13) have witnessed the incident and^their names have been recorded in the FIR Ex.P-7. Therefore, only delay in recording their statements under Section 161 of^{theCrPCbyitselfisnot} fatal to the prosecution, even otherwise,^{ithasonlycorroborative value.The} trial Court has also substantially^{reliedupontheevidenceofDineshSingh} Thakur (PW-5).

¶92

23.Aforesaidwitnesses have also^{deposedthataftertheincident theywentto} the house of appellant Basant^{Vermawhowasinsidehishouse,they} knocked the door then he opened^{thedoorandthereafter,hewasbrought} to the police station. Counsel has taken specific^{defenceofalibithat}

¶93

ft^ Page^fr€f11

¶94

Cr.A.Nos.901/2009, 907/2009. 926/2009 & 9/2010

¶95

app611ant Basant Verma was not present on the spot andhe was taken from his house, but as per evidenceofDinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5), he was presenton the spot, he assaulted the deceased and thereafter, all appellants fled away from the spot. Presence of Basant Verma in his house after the incident was not as a result of alibi, but is consequent toleaving the place of incident after reaching of other witnesses and police. Even otherwise, evidence to establish alibi has not been adduced by appellant Basant Verma.

¶96

24.As per case ofthe prosecution and evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW5), on account ofdispute relating to Ganesh visarjan, on23-9-2008 at about 12 mid night, the appgllants gathered near Udai Square, they were holding deadly weat>(5|s,|)SiS&|'l^ftw|Hy^^|eltand they assaulted Mukku @ Mykeshtilktti^iSeath. Presence ofall accifeld afodcVime, at 12 mid night ^stHatitSb with deadly weapons by itself is sufficierrftCE>rei%tlie fact that they "tl^have formed unlawfut assemblyand armed with deadly"weapons.

^^•^:-

•"^-

25.Constitution of unlatvfuBas^inbil^js^a question offact and the prosecution is required te) prme(s^ltts W^af unlawful assembly and its common object. Unlawful asseffiEil^iTSy®econstituted at any moment and person may join unlawful assefnBl^^at'atiy time, even at the time of causing injury, but the prosecution<M require€t0tprove the aforesaid fact by adducing cogent and reliable levidence thalE]the persons have formed the unlawful assembly orjoined in unlawFulassembly having its common object and was having its common object for commission of the aforesaid offence. Mere presence as a stranger, by passer or gathered on the spot to seequarrel or the incident would not make the person liable for formation pf.unlawful assembly or liable for the commissionof offence.

¶101

26.As far as the question of formation of unlawful assembly is concerned, in "the presentcase, evidence ofDinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5) and gathering of persons at 12 mid night at Udai Chowk that too with deadly weapons by itself are sufficient toestablish that the appellants have formed unlawful assembly andwere armedwith deadly weapons. As far as the question 6f common object and knowledge ofcommon objectto each ofthe members isconcerhed, gathering of persons at odd time, at 12 mid night with deadly weapons, active participation in commission ofcrime, causing fatal injuries to the deceased by deadly weappns till his death by itself are sufficient to

¶102

~y
f

¶103

b^&
Page11'oT11

¶104

Cr.A.Nos.901/2009, 907/2009. 926/2009 & 9/2010

¶105

prove that common object of the assembly was to commit murder of deceased Mukku @ Mukesh and that every member of the assembly was having the knowledge of common object.

¶106

27.After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appeltents under Sections 148 & 302 read with Section 149 ofthe IPC.

¶107

28.Evidence of Dinesh Singh Thakur (PW-5) supported by promptly lodged FIR Ex.P-7, morgue Ex.P-6, and evidence of other witnesses Sudhanshu Agrahari (PW-7), Vikrant Shukla (PW-8), Abhijit Singh Thakur @ Rana (PW-9), Jacky @ Prakash Namdeo(PW-11), Manoj Mishra (PW-12) & Anand @ Kajju Yadaw (PW-13) are;sufficient to prove the aforesaid facts that the appellarftslhave'lorrried'uhtawfyljassemblyarmed with deadly weapons having common object to commit murderfof Mukku @ Mukesh

¶108

? 'ahd in furtherance of common object of the assembly, tliey have committed " the murder of Mukku @ Mukesh, Therefore, by convictin^and sentencing the appellants in the afofesaid manner, the trial Court has not committed any illegality. ; ^

¶109

~^s" -. _i.,::... •:,;'.'. ','.:.':^::.."' • '

¶110

Consequently, all the appeais are devoid of merit, same are liable to be

¶111

dismissed and are hereby dismissed. .—-—

¶112

Sd/-

¶113

,-,^.. T.P.Sharma
Judge

¶114

Sd/-
inder Singh Uboweja
Judge

Chandresh Bhoi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandresh Bhoi 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

Sharad Chand Swarnkar and Ors. Vs Smt. Mular Bai and Others

Arvind Rai Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ram Avtar Yadav Vs Prabhudayal and Ors.

Laxmi Kiran Mahant Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Smt.anju Sahu And Ors. Vs Officer Incharge And Ors.

Dharmendra Verma and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh