Dismissed

Kisun Satnami v. State

Chhattisgarh HC7 Feb 2014CRA/2142/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common judgment disposes of two criminal appeals challenging convictions and death sentences under Section 302/34 IPC. The High Court found the evidence of five eyewitnesses regarding the assault with clubs and the postmortem report conclusive. The appellants could not prove fault, and their bail was cancelled. Appeals dismissed; appellants arrested.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed. Bail bonds cancelled. Appellants directed to be arrested immediately and sent to prison to serve remainder of sentence.

Kisun Satnami Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

XH-tS9/(3ail) C.J.P.R.11/&4/2,000 CF0000060028

¶2

i"!ii

¶3

^^^f/l^^ ^ ... J'AEAt.pycj; ^^:-m^^l: if ;s M

¶4

¶5

B^. flo-~-.^l^^lll:

¶6

APPEAL OF PRISONEF? R°wpF -ss^^ -' .. ••S^^ -8020.././......„...„......,.,....,..Name,.^^.m;^..!l;^.M.Be^J..- Father's name ..^&r..3?3I?fl:'..'%qFt^T?..W[r...2?T?T^73r.........:...... ResideDce1^^.^.?MO..?............Age...-'45.^;........,,........--^.....-.. Sectenced to^?T?^5r7TgT?..................,.On.^^7^??8..... ^ Undersection.-^02<3^.3fT0513f^.^_.by^T^,^^^^ " ': ..' :' - - ' ; ' •^m'^iffog^-i : ^{-^} '; ' ' ' '• ' '• '''	c%k^tf ^w T m -K:.', 'iit^ ;¥'•..'' ii.^-- •:!...T
/!..•. • • ../"."... . .'•'."'•'. .. i^. . . -- . •• • • •••. >[t is explained to the priscmer that ifhe states or wisHiss to be represented.by legal ^titioner the Appellate C'ourt willnot proceed wi'th the,,base for seven days^uniess legal practitioner appears .,If the tegal practttioBer-dees^net appear-withia seyeh days he may not heard at all Iftlie prisoner states that he does not wish to be repie- senled by legal practitibner the court may piuceed at ODce.wiih the case and will nof be. obliged to give a hearing to ariy legaTpractitioner who should appear ., ?':[^s' ' ' ••- .'•.'.' • . ' •'.'•..•' .'••'' ^''. . '" ' • ''•'••

APPEAL OF PRISONEF?
R°wpF
-ss^^
-'
.. ••S^^
-8020.././......„...„......,.,....,..Name,.^^.m;^..!l;^.M.Be^J..-
Father's name ..^&r..3?3I?fl:'..'%qFt^T?..W[r...2?T?T^73r.........:......
ResideDce1^^.^.?MO..?............Age...-'45.^;........,,........--^.....-..
Sectenced to^?T?^5r7TgT?..................,.On.^^7^??8..... ^
Undersection.-^02<3^.3fT0513f^.^_.by^T^,^^^^
"
':
..'
:'
- -
'
;
'
•^m'^iffog^-i
: ^{-^}
';

'
'
'
'•
'
'•
'''

c%k^tf
^w
T
m
-K:.',
'iit^
;¥'•..''
ii.^--
•:!...T

/!..•.
•
•
../"."...
.
.'•'."'•'.
.. i^.
.
.
--
.
••

•

•
•••.
>[t is explained to the priscmer that ifhe states or wisHiss to be represented.by legal
^titioner the Appellate C'ourt willnot proceed wi'th the,,base for seven days^uniess
legal practitioner appears .,If the tegal practttioBer-dees^net appear-withia seyeh
days he may not heard at all
Iftlie prisoner states that he does not wish to be repie-
senled by legal practitibner the court may piuceed at ODce.wiih the case and will nof be.
obliged to give a hearing to ariy legaTpractitioner who should appear .,
?':[^s'
'
'
••- .'•.'.'
•
.
'
•'.'•..•'
.'••'' ^''.
.
'"
'
•
''•'••

¶7

?':[ ^s	g , ' ••- .'•.'.' • . •.•..• .'••'' ^''. . • •••
1	Date ofApplication for copy ofjuidgement ./. ..,.. ...''.......,....................„.
2	Uate ori which copyreceived "•y2/fi8/98^.,... .„..,;.* .........;.....................
3 4	Date on which Appealseat../^/08/99.....,.....-.......;.., ,.. ................... 'Whether tbe prisoaer wishes to be represented or.nof—Yes/,No

¶8

'>-^>.

¶9

, -v' Sh! -:: ":%i "'aN^^ ;w

¶10

Confinedin-................... .3).<r$;l4i...... Jail ....7XS^i''—i..^QfQ-i—. . ...............-..,? -Dated..:...^:<<.^Qe ..499S....:..,..>.. ...............l....^^^^

¶11

?r^arded to the effiEF;^SeK?fe *4AQ^S¥ A¥g'Sr^^X .Sf^Q..'S^^J^SS. flpFfN 3s?t '^grgrag g'-^-g^T aw$7' !togatherwhich a copy of judgement or orde? passed in thevaseforfavouroftransmissi&n to the proper Appellate Court. rrqi: - ?pr pi?Tr ^imi, 332/91 ^ ''"-. gTrrf°Yn.?i?!r-yfiTfNlT i : ^ ,

y s\ N

".t3^fc::. 1 li!

Date ofTeeevpl in.... ........ ... .......;.........office....4...y.......;.............'....;..„„...: Daie of receipt iscprd to accoa}p^!ny ihe-^.....................^..^..^..^.'...."^.".""^. Memo of Appea.lfo the ,ApRellate«cburt .......; ;. ............ ...^... ...... .^...,.,..;....

¶16

......ri... Dated ....^.....,.......199...;.....

Ho-

If-f

Forwa:rded to the

]late (?Freee$pt;in Appgllate'CouTt'.—. ......^;^...,..•.,„............

¶21

^fc^.E-F.^&SiltMIJ -^S^ ';%%BRSSSB ^'.^; ij..SS?»(-i .^:/^^^^^:^^?^??-^^^^?^;-'-^

¶22

\^\ ^K :]^%^

¶23

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR

¶24

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

¶25

Criminal Aopeal No. 2142 of 1998

APPELLANT

Kisoon

VERSUS-

RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)

¶30

Criminal Appeal No. 2143 of 1998

¶31

APPELLANT Biselal Satnami

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

RESPONDENT State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh/

¶34

Smt. Savita Tiwari, counsel forthe accused/appeltants. Shri RavindraAgrawal, PLforthe respondent/State.

¶35

J UDG M ENT (07.02.2014)

¶36

As the aforesaid two appeals arise out of judgment dated

¶37

06.07.1998 pas^ed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, <. / District Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 382/91 they are disposed of

¶38

by this common judgment.

¶39

By the judgment impugned the^{accused/appellantshave} been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and each of them J- sentericed to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/-

aia H K Bi *-5S H

•i<!B ^Sl•^^

-2-

plus default stipulation.

¶47

Names of the deceased in this case are Dukalu and Dulorin Bai. It is alleged that on 01.06.1991 at about 2.00 P.M. The accused/appellants and the deceased/accused Ganesh Ram •» came to the house of Dukalu and on being called by them when Dukalu came out of the house, they." asked him to accompany them to Basa and on his refusal to go with them^accused Kisoon dragged him by hair and then all three started assaulting him with the help ofclubs. According tothe case ofthe prosecution wife of accused Kisoon was allegedly raped by one Babulal - brother of deceased Dukalu, accused/appellants were demanding Rs. 25,000 from Babulal and that on the date of incident they came to the house of deceased Duaklu and asked him to come out of the house. Meanwhile, when mother of deceased Dukalu came to intervene in the matter, she too was brutally assaulted by the accused persohs as a result of which she died. FIR Ex. P-3 was lodged by Harichand (P^W-2) - nephew of the deceased namely Dukalu - theeyewitness to the incident atleging that the accused persons came to the house of deceased Dukalu, took him out and then assai.ilted him with clubs. When the other deceased Dulorih inten/ened in the matter, she too was assaulted by them. On the basis of FIR, .offence under Section 302/34 IPC was registered againsfthe accused persons. Merg Ex. P-5 was also recorded. Postmortem examination on the body ofthe deceased persons was conducted by Dr. P.K. Bajpai (PW-1) viae Ex. P-1

¶48

$tjn ^!^

¶49

•

¶50

;js... • '.;! ^i ;.i:: B:S;-.r VS'il'i

¶51

¶52

and P-2 and accordingto him the cause of de'ath was shock and haemorrhage due to extensive injuries. Thereafter, the chargesheet was filed under Section 302/34 IPC followed by framing of charge under the same section. During trial, accused Ganesh Ram died and the present appeal is in relation to accused Kisoon and Biselal.

¶53

In support of its case the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. Statements of the accused were also persons recoi-ded under Section. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

¶54

By the judgment impugned the Court below has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

¶55

. Counsel for the accused/appellants submits that in fact the deceased persons were killed by deceased/accused Ganesh Ram but on account of old enmity, the accused/appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. She submits that the / statements. ofthe eyewitnesses are doubtful and it appears that they are theplanted witnesses.^{Accordingtothecounselforthe} accused/appellants, there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the eyewitn^ses and therefore the accused/appellants cannot be convicted based thereon.

:i^'

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing the accused/appellants are strictly in accordance with law. He submits that there are five eyewitnesses to the incident and all of them have categorically stated a§ to the manner in which the accused persons assaulted two deceased persons and that being so, the impugned judgment is not required to be interfered with by this Court.

¶60

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

¶61

Harichand (PW-2) - the eyewitness to the incident and lodger of the report has stated that on the date of incident the accused persons came to the houseof deceased Dukalu carrying clubs in their hands, took him out and startpd assaulting him. According to him, when his maternal grand-mother intervened in the matter, she was also brutally assaulted by th'e accused persons. This witness has further stated that number of injuries were cause9 on the entire body of deceased Dukalu. Likewise, there was'an injury on the head of deceased Dulorin Bai and she succumbed to justjwo injuries caused by the accused persons. This witness Ts stated to have seen the incident from the distance of about 15 ft. In cross-examination also this witness has stated the same thing as in the examination-in-chief. Derhin Bai (PW-3)

¶62

¶63

and Ganesia Bai (PW-6)^- other eyewitnesses to the incident while supporting the case of the prosecution have stated almost the same thing as has been stated by Harichand (PW-2). Dharmu (PW-10) - neighbour ofthe deceased persons and eyewitness to the incident has also supported the case of the prosecution narrating the manner in which the two deceased were assaulted by the accused persons. Yet another eyewitness namely Bisahin Bai (PW-18) has also supported the case of the prosecution categorically stating the manner in which the accused persons assaulted two deceased persons. Dr. P.K. B^fpai (PW-1) is the witness who conducted postmortem examination on the bodies of the deceased persons and found the following injuries on their bodies:

¶64

Iniuries caysed to deceased Dukalu:

¶65

Contusions six in number situated on right

¶66

(1) lateral and anterior aspect of chest and abdomen, size varies 10x2" to 7 x1".

¶67

Contusions three in number situated on right

¶68

(ii) scapular region.

¶69

Contusions three in number on right upper

¶70

(iii) arm, anterior and lateral aspect placed vertically si2e-8x1", 6x1" and 5x1". Contusion 3x1" on right forearm anterior

¶71

(iv) aspect.

¶72

(v) Lacerated wound 4x1" just below nose placed tr^nsversely, fracture of upper and lower right

¶73

^fiandible.

¶74

(vi)~ (Lacerated^wound 8x1 bone deep on left • anteriorfrontal, multiple fracture of both frontal

¶75

. and parietal bone, pieces of bones came out throughyvound.

¶76

Fracture of middle of sternum transversely.

¶77

(vii)

¶78

-6

¶79

Iniuries caused to deceased Dulrin Bai:

¶80

(1) Three contusions on anterior lateraJ aspect of right chest size 9x1" x 8x1", 10^1" placed vertically.

¶81

(ii) Contusion 7x1" placed vertically on middle of right side of chest.

¶82

(iii) Contusion 7x2" on left side of chest extending towards epigastrice region.

¶83

(iv) Contusion 6x1" placed obliquely at epigastrice & left hypo-chondrial region.

¶84

(v) Fracture of lower third o'f right radius ulna. (vi) Lacerated wound, 3x2" bone deep extending from right angle of mouth towards right chest, fracture of maxillary bone and right upper and lower mandible.

¶85

(vii) Lacerated wound 3x2" on left forehead, fracture anterior frontal.

¶86

(viii) Lacerated wound 4x2" bone deep, fracture of right anterior frontal extending towards parital reglon.

¶87

Fracture of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7&8 right rib lateral and

¶88

(ix) anterior aspect.

¶89

Fracture of left rib 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 on anterior

¶90

(x) aspect.

¶91

Lacerated wound at right upper half, right ear

¶92

(xi) is absent.

¶93

According to the doctor, cause of death of both the deceased persons was shock and haemorrhage due to extensive

¶94

injuries.

¶95

¶96

On the basis of memorandum of accused persons, clubs used in the c^ffence were seized vide Ex. P-25 & P-26. Ex. P-39 is -.- / the.Serologist's report according^{towhichthebloodfoundon} earth chappal, bangle, underwear, saree, club, shirt and lungi was the humao blood. S.K. Naqvi (PW-16) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution.

Having thus closely examined the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution it is apparent that on 1.6.1991 the accused persons went to the house of deceased Dukalu, called him out, asked him to accompany them to Basa and when Dukalu declinedto go with them, they assaulted him by the clubs carried by them thereby causing several injuries described above which ultimately ted to his death. The evidence on record also goes to show that when deceased Dulorin reached the spot and tried to intervene in the matter, the accused persons assaulted her too in a brutal manner who could not survive even the two club blows. Even the Serelogist's report makes it clear that the blood found on the above mentioned items is the human blood. This apart, nothing has been brought out by the defence to falsify the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. The defence has utterly failed to establish that it is the deceased/aecused alone who had caused the fatal injuries to the deceased persons because the material on record categorically goes to show--that all the accused person went to the house of deceased Dukalu and assaulted him with the clubs carried by therp and when the other deceased^{Dulorincameto} the spot and'intervened in the matter, she^{toowasmercilessly} subjected to beating by them. In this view of the matter, there appears to be no.reason for this Court to disbelieve the evidence of five eye witnesses to the incident and that of the doctor conducting postmortem examination on the bodies of the

¶101

^iNJill^ WKSf fff "^y il!t

¶102

¶103

¶104

deceased persons. Minor contradiction and omissions, if any, in the statements of the witnesses who happen to be rustic villagers cannot be given much weightage particularly when every eye witness has categorically stated that it is all th$ accused persons who brutally assaulted the-deceased persons with the dubs held by them.

¶105

The findings recorded by the Court below thus are in conformity with the evidence of the witnessesand there appears to be no illegality or infirmity_on the part of the court below to convict the accused/appellants as adumbrated above. Thus, according'to the considered opinion of this G6urt the judgment impugned does not warrant any interference. Appeals being devoid of substance are liable to be dismissed and they are dismissed as such. As the accused/appellants are on bait, there bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to be arrested immediately and sent to prison for serving out remainder of the

¶106

sentence imposed on them.

¶107

Sd/-
Chief Justice
>. /

¶108

Sd'Pritinker Diwaker Judge

Kisun Satnami v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisun Satnami 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

Avinash Singhal Vs Bhuneshwari Chandrakar and Others

Mohammd Ahamad Khan Vs Dharmchand and Anr.

Ramkrishna Singh Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Bise Lal Vs State

Nandkishore Nashine and Another Vs Rajkaran Nai @ Raju and Others

Stephan @ Tephan Khalkho Vs the State of C.G.