Dismissed

Radheshyam @ Bodu v. State

Chhattisgarh HC3 Sept 2014CRA/311/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The court held that the prosecution evidence, including eyewitness testimony and extrajudicial confessions, proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Bail was cancelled, and the appellant was directed to be sent to jail.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; bail cancelled; appellant directed to be sent to jail forthwith.

Radheshyam @ Bodu Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

I! If

¶2

'eFsessifeszs'K'
B,aTO-,6Ssif
^tf-'^
%N THE H IGH COL'RT DF JUDICATURE ri. P. AT 3ABALPUR
-..'Cciminal Appeal No.3>\ /2000

¶3

CRIFIINAL APPLAL UNDEFi SECTION 374,COQE OF CRIflIMAL
PROCEEDURE I973.
A,Pcc;LUil»T
Ra.dheshyam alias yodu
A ccused
"S/o
Latkhor Sahu, aged aoout
i.Under Custody)
26 years, occbpsticn cultivator,
resi.denT: of vilJ.gge Latskodo,
^'"' ^. '
.^"\sy•V; -9V-''~, ,/'' ,,'-.-e^ police,.^' station Arooagarh Chouki,
^A^" .byi District Rajnandgaon ^(1F«)
U £ RS US
^"
r
RE5PONDENT STATE CF F}. P.

^ A/^

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

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

¶9

Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2000

¶10

APPELLANT

¶11

Radheshyam alias Bodu

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

RESPONDENT

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh

¶15

Smt. Savita Tiwari counsel forthe appellant.

¶16

Shri D. K. Gwalre GAforthe respondent/State.

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(03.09.2014)

¶19

This appeal arises out ofjudgment and order dated 13.1.2000 passed^{byAdditionalSessionsJudge,RajnandgaoninSessionsTrial} No. 07/1999 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 302, 323 and 323 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 302 and Rl for six months each for causing injuries to Chamruram (PW-2) and Sonbati (PW-3), plus default stipulations.

¶20

Facts ofthe case in briefare that on 10.08.1998 there was some dispute between the accused/appellant^{andthefatherof thedeceased} namely Chamruram (PW-2) over dumping of garbagein the field of Chamruram. Accused/appellant first caused injury to Chamruram (PW2) and Sonbati (PW-3) and thereafter chased deceased Kachruram

¶21

¶22

and after catching hold of him near the village pond he assaulted hi'm with axe resulting in his death. Merg intimation Ex. P-15 was recorded on 10.8.1998 at 7 PM at the instance of Rajaram and immediately thereafter FIR Ex. P-16 came to be registered. Postmortem examination on the body of the deceased was conducted on 12.8.1998 by Dr. V.P. Khunte (PW-1) who gave his report Ex. P-2 opining that he noticed five injuries on his body and the cause of death was shock due to injury to large blood vessel of neck. MLC of Chamruram (PW-2) was conducted vide Ex. P-8 and that of Sonbati (PW-3) vide Ex. P-3 and both of them are stated to have sustained injuries but simple in nature. Accused/appellant was also medically examined by Dr. R.S. Gupta (PW-6) who gave his report Ex. D-1 stating that he noticed one lacerated wound on the right side of neck and there was swelling in the chest. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant under section 302 IPC. However, the Court below framed the charge against the accused/appellant under sections 302, 323 and 323 IPC accordingly.

¶23

In order to estabtish the guilt of the accused/appellant the has examined 11 witnesses. Statement of the prosecution accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, two witnesses namety Ram Prasad (DW-1) and Ramadhar (DW-2) have been examined by the defence in support of its case.

¶24

After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and

¶25

¶26

sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above in paragrap 1'.,

¶27

No.1 ofthisjudgment.

¶28

Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated and in fact he himself was beaten by Kachruram. She submits fhat statements of Chamruram (PW-2), Sonbati (PW-3), Brajbai (PW-9) and Fulmatbai (PW-10) are self contradictory and therefore cannot be made basis for conviction. According to her, even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the act of the accused/appellant would not travel beyond exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and therefore at best he can be convicted under Section 304-11 IPC as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant to commit the murder of the deceased and the incident had taken place on the spur of moment.

¶29

On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned and submits that conviction of the judgment accused/appellant is based on the evidence collected by the prosecution and the approach of the trial Court in its appreciation and resultant conclusion does not suffer from any legal flaw. He submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Chamruram (PW2), Sonbati (PW-3), Brajbai (PW-9) and Fulmatbai (PW-10). According to the State counsel, on the basis of memorandum of the accused/appellant Ex. P-11 seizure ofaxe, btood stained and piain soil and the clothes of the accused/appellant was made vide Ex. P-12, P- 13 and P-14 respectively. State counsel further submits that clothes of the accused/appellant and the axe were stained with blood vide FSL report Ex. P-21. He submits that apart from the eyewitnesses,

¶30

¶31

statements of Surendra Kumar (PW-4) and Chhabilal Sahu (PW-5) are there before whom the accused/appellant had made extrajudicial confession categorically stating that he had committed the murder of the deceased.

¶32

Dr. V.P. Khunte (PW-1) is the witness who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased and gave his report Ex. P-2 stating that he noticed following five injuries on his body:

¶33

(i) Tenderness on the left shoulder^- size 4 cm x 3 cm.

¶34

(ii) Abrasion on the right side of the chest - size 10 cm x 1 cm

¶35

(iii) tenderness towards left side of the neck - size 4 cm x 1 cm

¶36

Contusion on the left knee - size 2 cm x 1 cm

¶37

(iv)

¶38

(v) Contusion on the right calf - size 2 cm x 1 cm.

¶39

According to this witness, cause of death was shock due to injury to large blood vessel of neck and the death was homicidal in nature.

¶40

luiJ

¶41

Chamruram (PW-2)^- father of the deceased has stated that on the date o,f incident his wife and son (deceased) had gone to sparge the fertilizer in his field. He has stated that as the garbage was dumped on the bund of his field, his wife had objected to iton which his brother Latkhor came there and beat him as well as his son (deceased). Thereafter, while he along with his wife and son (deceased) was getting^{back,accused/appellantmethimonthewayandaskedhimto} accompany him to the field; When he declined to do so, the accused/appellant beat him as well as his son (deceased) on account ofwhich the deceased was not able to walk freely. While he was taking

¶42

¶43

his soh home, on seeing Ramprasad near the pond he freed himself and ran towards home. Said Ramprasad is said to have beaten his wife Sonbati as a result of which she became unconscious. According to this witness, when his son was going towards home, he was stopped by Ramprasad and the accused/appellant and was assaulted with axe by the accused/appellant causing injury on neck. After reaching home when he found his house locked, he returned towards the pond and saw his dead body lying nearby drenched with blood. Sonbati (PW-3) has also made similar statement like Chamruram (PW2). Surendra Kumar (PW-4) is the village Kotwar before whom accuse/appellant had made extrajudicial confession. He is also said to have accompanied Rajaram to the police station for lodging the report. He has stated that in the village accused/appellant was called and on being asked he admitted to have killed the^{deceased.ChhabilalSahu} (PW-5) is another witness before whom the accused/appellant had made extrajudicial confession to the effect that on account of some land dispute he had killed the deceased with axe. Dr. R.S. Gupta (PW6) is the witness who did MLC of Chamruram (PW-2) and Sonbati (PW-3). According to him, he noticed three injuries on the body of Chamruram vide Ex. P-8 and five injuries on the body of Sonbati vide Ex. P-3. He also conducted MLC of accused/appellant vide Ex. D-1 and noticed one lacerated wound on the right side of neck and swelling in the chest. Gangaram (PW-7) - the witness to inquest notice Ex. P-9, inquest Ex. P-10, memorandum Ex. P-11 and seizure made under Ex. P-12 and P-13, has duly supported the case^ofthe prosecution. Mojiram (PW-8) is the witness to inquest notice Ex. P-9 and inquest Ex. P-10. Brajbai (PW-9) - the eyewitness to the incident

¶44

¶45

while supporting the case of the prosecution has stated that on the date of incident when she was taking bath in the village pond along with Fulmatbai (PW-10), she saw the accused/appellant taking the deceased with him to the pond and giving two axe blows to him as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground. In crossexamination, this witness remained very firm to what she has stated in the examination-in-chief. Fulmatibai (PW-10) has made similar statement like Brajbai (PW-9). G.R. Dharamgude (PW-11) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the case of the prosecution. Ram Prasad (DW-1) - the brother of the accused/appellant and son of Lathkhor has stated that his father Latkhor was chased by the deceased and his parents namely Chamruram and Sonbati. According to him, the deceased was carrying axewhereas his parents were carrying clubs, they started assaulting his father Latkhor and when the accused/appellant intervened in the same he too was assaulted by the deceased, his father and mother. In the said incident, accused/appellant snatched the axe from the hand of the deceased and while he was brandishing it which fell on his neck. Ramadhar (DW-2) has not stated anything specific.

¶46

Having thus seen the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, this Court arrives at the conclusion that on 10.8.1998 the accused/appellant caused injuries to Chamruram (PW2) and Sonbati (PW-3) and^{thenafterchasingthedeceaseduptothe} pond he inflicted as many as five axe blows to him also which ultimately resulted in his death. Brajbai (PW-9) and Fulmatibai (PW10)^- the eyewitness to the incident^{havealsosupportedthecaseof}

¶47

¶48

... s^

¶49

the prosecution.. categorically. stating... as to the manner in which tRe' accused/appellant open assault on the deceased. in addition to this, Surendra Kumar (PW-4) and Chhabilal Sahu (PW-5) before whom extrajudicial confession was made by the accused/appellant, have also supported the case of the prosecution. Further, the axe seized on the basis of memorandum of the accused/appellant was found to be blood stained vide FSL report Ex. P-21. Thus the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the Couri: below too appears to have been fully justified in recording the finding of conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 302 for commission of murder of the deceased and under Sections 323 IPC each causing injuries to Chamruram (PW-2) and Sonbati (PW-3). Judgment under challenge has been passed after due appraisal of the evidence of the witnesses and therefore no interference is required with the same.

¶50

Appeal thus being without substance is hereby dismissed. Accused/appellant is on bail. Bail^is cancelled and^{heisdirectedtobe} sent to jail forthwith to complete the sentence imposed on him.

¶51

Sd/Sd/pritinker Diwaker Judge Chief Justice

¶52

Radheshyam @ Bodu v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheshyam @ Bodu v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banshi Das Vs the State of M.P.

Karmu Rathia Vs State

Rambahadur Vs the State of M.P.

Smt.Phool Bai Jhariya Vs State

Sobran Vs the State of M.P.

Deepak Shrivastava Vs Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya And Anr.