Dismissed

Poos Ram Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Nov 2014CRA/375/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal against a murder conviction. The court held that extrajudicial confessions, corroborated by witnesses and the accused opening a locked house containing the body, were sufficient for conviction under Section 302 IPC, and the accused failed to meet his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2010 was dismissed.

Poos Ram Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

©^l

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR .ic£sl n ^^" .^ CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. ' ^ ^ S /2010

¶4

(APPEAL ARISE FROM DISTRICT-RAIGARH)

¶5

APPELLANT Poos Ram Gond S/o- Jahar Sai, ^ .'][ y— (Injail) ^4V''C ^ aged about52 years, caste-Gond, C^-'^^.P''' occupationcultivation, R/oVillage-Kamraga, P.S. -Lailunga, .'.^""'A^^.'^ ^ .••"'"" District- Raigarh (C.G.) ^> VERSUS RESPONDENT StateofC.G.

¶6

StateofC.G. Through P.S. Lailunga, DistrictRaigarh (C.G.)

¶7

MEMO OF CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDERR SECTION 374 f2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973.

¶8

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLESHRI T.P.SHARMA, J. HON'BLE SHRI INDER SINGH UBOWEJA,J.

¶10

Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2010

¶11

APPELLANT Poos Ram Gond (InJail)

¶12

Versus RESPONDENT The State of Chhattisgarh {Criminal^pRiealili.lBdeBSection 374(2) of the CQde of Criminal . .: ^•.:;..1^t';S:t€ll4Ut?rtroCeB|ra,'3lW3] l,Present:^ • ' -! ! '" i/^'^% ;' ; Shri F.S.Khare, counsel forthe appellaht.^ ^i Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer fbr thesSts|e.

¶13

; J^U D G M E N T H j <25th November, 2014)

¶14

PerT. P.Sharma, J.-

¶15

Challenge instliis appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence^cfated 27.01.2010 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 82/2009, whereby & whereunder, after holding the appellant guilty for causing homicidal death amounting to murder of his brotherSadhram, convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo.inlprisonment for lifeand fjne of Rs.1,000/-, in default, further R.l. for three months.

¶16

¶17

Conyiction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence the trial Court has convicted and

¶18

',ef"^ ^ ..•<"

¶19

Cr.A-375 of 2010

¶20

sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed anillegality.

¶21

¶22

As per case of the prosecution, on fatefu] day of 08.07.2009 on aecountof regular quarrel and dispute, the appellant caused homicidal death of his brother- Sadhram inside his house and locked the house. At about 10 p.m., the appe|la)'it||iade extra,jydicial confession to Baratram, who InfQmned Keshav Prasad Yadavj Up-Sarpanch (PW-1). He went to the house of the appellant alGlrig with Baigaram (PW-3), Nawalsai (PW/-4) and Kanhaiyalal (RW-5). Appellant was also sfandiiig in front of his house. His house was closed and locKed. JHe opened the lock of his house by a key, Theyehtered the house and saw the dead-body by a torch and closed the hbuse. On the second day, Keshav Prasad Yadelv (PW-1) went to Police Station, Lailunga and lodged FIR vide Ex.P/1 at 8.35 a.m., Merg was recorded vide Ex.P/2. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/3, ihquest over the dead body of the deceased.was prepared vide Ex.P/4.. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/6. Bloodstained soil and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P/9. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health Center, Lailunga, where Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Saratiya

¶23

Cr.A-375 of 2010

¶24

¶25

(PW-7) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/15 and found following

¶26

injuries:-

¶27

i) Incised wound over the forehead of 10x 3 x7 cm;

¶28

ii) Incised wound of 3 x 1 cm beside injury-1;

¶29

iii) fncised wound of 10x 4 x 2 cm over left side ofthe head;

¶30

iv) Incised wound of 3 x 1 cm over forehead;

¶31

v) Indsed wciynd pverthe scalp of4x 2 x 1 cm;

¶32

livi^ 'lneised w&tirid overoeGiflitalj^gipn of5 x2 x2 cm;

¶33

vii) Incised wound 6f 8x2x1 cm over oceipital region;

¶34

viii) Incised WQuod'overpccipital region of €Q|x2x 2 cm;

¶35

ix) Incised wounid of^S % x 3 x 2 cm over left side of the •

¶36

• neck.':,"^,^:ss:s;^';,s . .

Death was as airesyllfof injury and it was homicidal in nature. Appellant iwas^alsb examined by Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Saratiya (PW-^wtefcund two contusion vide Ex.P/17. During the course of investigation, the appellant was taken into custody, he made disclosure statement 6f battle-axe vide Ex.P/7 and the same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P/8. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P/12. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the FSL and presence of blood on the battle-axe has been affirmed vide Ex.P/23.

¶41

Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was

¶42

Cr.A-375 of 2010

¶43

filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, who ih turn,committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh, from where, learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transfer for trial.

In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. Accused wgssexamined ynder Section 313 of the Code, in whfeh 1-le denied the circLti-ri§tarice§"appearingagainst him and pleaded innocence and false ifnplj(ation in crime in "Vf^ question;is-clai:med.:X?i.;:':.-,

¶49

After proviEiingi.opportynityof hearing to the parties, learned 4th Additional |S|ssioris Judge convicted and sentenced the appellantasafOFementipned.

¶50

We have heardilearoed counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment impugned and record of trial Court. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that, eonviction is substantially based ori evidence of extra judicial cbnfession made by the appellant before Keshav Prasad Yadav (PW-1), Baigararn (PW-3) and Kanhaiyalal (PW-5). Extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and it is not sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant was author of crime. In absence of furi:her corroboration from the independent source, evidence of Keshav Prasad Yadav (PW-1), Baigaram (PW-3) and

¶51

Cr.A-375 of 2010

¶52

Kanhaiyalal (PW-5) is self contradictory. Their evidence does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy. Except the aforesaid evidence, prosecution has not collected any evidenceto connectthe appellant in crime in question.

¶53

¶54

¶55

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submits that dead-body was found inside the house of tlie a^Rellantswhich was closed and locked by the appellant; He opened the ilocK; ttoereafter, the witnesses have seen the dead-body. The appellanyhas made extra judicial cohfession ^efore Keshav Praseid'Yadav (PW-1), Baigaram <R'\A/-3)andQKanhaiyalal (PW-5). The appellant has voluntarily made extra judicial confession, which by itself is sufficient for drawing inference that he is author of the crime. Eyen otherwise, if the offence committed under secrecy, as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the appellant is required to offer an explanation that who has caused the homicidal deathofthe deceased. In absence of such explanation, Qnlyinference would be possible that the appellant is the author of crime and none else. On the basis of aforesaid evidence, the trial Court has rightly CQnvicted and sentenced the appellant as aforemehtioned.

¶56

In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adducied on behalf of prosecution.

Cr.A-375 of 2010

In the present case, homicidal death of Sadhram, brother of the appellant, as a result of fatal injuries found over the body has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Keshav Prasad Yadav (PW-1), Baigaram (PW-3),^Nawalsai (PW-4),^Kanhaiyalal (PW-5),^FIR (Ex.P-1), Merg Intimatipn (Ex.R-2), Dr. Yogeshwar Singh Saratiya (PW-7) arid autopsy reF)C)W^@3iEP-15), that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature.

¶62

As regards the GompliGity pf the appellant in erime in question is c6ncem§cl, cpnviction is substantially based on the evidence of extrajudicial confession made before Keshav Prasad Yadav (PW-li), Baigaram (PW-3) and Kanhaiyalal (PW-5). As per their evidence, initially Keshav Prasad Yadav was informed by Barat'ram that the appellant has killed his brother Sadhram. Theh he went to the house of the appellant along with the dther witnesses at 10 p.m. The appellant was also present in front of his house which was closed and locked. The appellant made extra judicial confession before them, he opened the lock, then they entered inside the house, where, they saw the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, they locked the door and in the morning Keshav Prasad Yadav (PW-1) went to the Police

f IQife' --°-«>;^.

Cr.A-375 of 2010

Station, Lailunga, lodged FIR vide Ex.P/1 and Merg vide Ex.P/2.

ftr-^-

Baigaram (PW-3), Nawalsai (PW-4) and Kanhaiyalal (PW5) have also deposed that the appellant was present in front of his house. The appellant made extra judicial confession before them and opened the lock. Thereafter, they saw the dead-bcidysOfcttiesdece^^ed. Defence has cross-examined these"withesses at lengtR^ilxittliasynot been able to elicit anything in their cross-examinatidi'l^tSi discredit their testimony. Extra jucticial confession orii^h&. ground of evidence.i^wiiluntaryiand true, the same is sufficienffor , drawing posftivesinference.

¶72

While dea|ing;withi5c]uestionof evidentiary valueof extra-judiciafc^confessi©n made under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court in the matter of Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab1 has held that extra-judicial confessionis a weak type of evidence. No conviction ordinarily can be based solely thereupon unless same is corroborated in material particulars. While dealing with the same question, the Supreme Court in the matter of IVIohd. Azad @ Samin v. State of West Bengal2 has held that if extra-judicialCQnfession made voluntarily and truth in a fitstate of mind then it can be relied

¶73

'2009 AIR SCW 3730 22009 AIR. SCW 752

¶74

¶75

Cr.A-375 of 2010

¶76

upon and confession will have to prove like in any other

¶77

evidence. Para22 ofthe saidjudgment reads as under:-

¶78

¶79

"22. An extra-judidal confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The cpnfession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom >t has been made. The value of the evidence as to theconfession depends on the reliahilli^ gfithe vstoess who gives the evidence. It g^^;::.;isigiffE;%Re!Bifi;any:i^ffite^ a presumption thaf extra-judicial conlBision is a weak type of evidence. It would depertd ©n1:hre;nature of the circumstances, the time when tl'ie;c©hfessionwas made and the credibility of the witiagsses who speak'lto such^a jGonfession. Such aiscoi-tfession cah^yeE^iBtiedapon the conviction can Be founded thereonSif?the^?evidence about the confession comesfrom'thi&mouthofwitnesses who appearto be uribiasgct, Hot even remotely inimical to the accused;"ianc|jiin respect of whom nothing is brougHt out whieh may tend to indicate that he may aye a motiye of attributing an untruthful statement^tolhelgcGused, the words spoken to by the witniess ' are clear, unambiguous and unmistakaibly'eonveythattheaccused is the perpetrator ofthe crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting fhe evidence of the witrtess to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession ean be accepted ahdcan be the basis of conviction if it passes the test gf credibility"

¶80

¶81

As per evidence of Keshav Prasad Yadav (PW-1), Baigaram (PW-3) and Kanhaiyalal (PW-5), dead-body of the deceased wasfound in thehouseoftheappellantat 10p.m. Deceased was brother of the appellant, who used to stay in the hpuse of the appellant. The house was locked, which was opened by the appellant himself. Offence was committed in secrecy.

¶82

Cr.A-375 of 2010

¶83

Offer to explanation, in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, thatwho has caused homicidal death ofthe deceased is upon the appellant. But :the appellant has failed to offer any explariation.In the afdresaid circumstances, the extra-judiGial confession made by the appellant is sufficient for drawing inference that he is author of the crime and none " else. ••" ':••:. •,1,,,1::,1,' .. !" ' . . ' .

¶84

¶85

After appreciafing theevKleneeavailable on record, learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge has consiisfed and sentenced the appellanfeasafoi'eT'rientioned. f 1

¶86

¶87

On close scn.itin^ 6f the evidence, we do ndt find any illegality or infirmity injjudgmentofconvictionand orderof sentence, recjuiring any^interferencse.

¶88

Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to

¶89

be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶90

Sd/Sd/Inder Singh Uboweja T.P. Sharma Judge Judge

¶91

Chandra

Poos Ram Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poos Ram Gond 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

The Managing Director,Zila Vanopaj Sahakari Union Ltd., Korea Vs Mst. Munni Kausar and Ors.

Kehat @ Bilkhi Nageshiya and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Bachhar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Pinjani Vs Sawant Dheewar and Others

Ramkala and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gulab Yadav and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh