Partly allowed

Rajesh Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2015CRA/222/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal appeal by an appellant against conviction and sentence for murder and atrocity, the Division Bench allowed the appeal partly. The court held that the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was illegal due to lack of caste motive, but affirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC based on the burning evidence and dying declaration.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act were quashed; appellant acquitted of that charge. Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were affirmed.

Rajesh Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

INTHEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DhrtrionBench

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.2-2^- QF 2010

¶4

APPELLANT

¶5

In jail

¶6

: \€^:XS^ ••••^s^^--^'^^'^.^ ^.-•y'^^>y'

¶7

Rajesh Shukla S/o Late Ramdulare . Shukla, aged about 26 years, OccupationBusiness (General Store) R/o Village-Lamker, P.S. Bhanpuri, Tahsil-Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.)

¶8

Versus

¶9

RESPONDENT

¶10

State ofChhattisgarh, through Police Station-Jagdalpur (Ajjak), Distt. Bastar (C.G.)

¶11

CMMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF ^r' CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973

¶12

•

¶13

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶14

Criminal ADpealNo.222 of 2010

APPELLANT:

(In Jail)

Rajesh Shukla

Versus

RESPONDENT:

State 6f Chhattisgarh

¶21

{Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973}

¶22

Present:

¶23

Mr. Shailendra Dubey.counsel fpr the appellant. .

¶24

Mr. Mahesh Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.

¶25

Division Bench: -

¶26

'- Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma andS f.^-" ; ;y S^ A ? Hon'ble Mr. I.S.^Ubbweia.JJ

JUDGMENT

(6-1-2015)

T.RiSharma.J:-

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgmentof conviction & order of sentence dated 9-2-2010 passedby theSessions Judge and Special Judge under—th^-ScheduledCastesandScheduled Tribes (Prevention bf AtrocitiesJ'Act, 1989, Bastar at Jagdalpur, in Sessions Trial No.74/20Q8, whereby & whereunder Igarned Sessions Judge and Special Judge after holding the appellant gujlty fer causing homicidal death amounting to murder of Kum. Meera Kashyap, a member of Scheduled Tribe, on the ground of her caste, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 ofthe IPC & 3 (2) (v) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of life & pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment offineto further undergo Rl for one month, on both counts.

¶31

Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant and '

¶32

thereby committed an illegality.

¶33

-As per case of the prosecution, uhfortunate deceased Kum. Meera Kashyap was having love affairs with the preset appellant. On 17-3-2008, unfortunate deceased Kum. Meera Kashyap was called by the appellant at about 8.30 p.m., she stayedin the house of the appellant till 9 p.m., at that time, she requested the appellant for marriage, then the appellant got annoyed and abusedher, and picked out the jerry-can containing mixed

¶34

Page 2 of 6

¶35

Cr.A.No.222/2010

¶36

kerosene oil & petrol, and poured upon Kum. Meera Kashyap and set her ablaze. After setting her ablaze, the appellant closed the door from outside and left the house. She shouted for help and some how she opened the door and ran towards her house in burning condition. She reached to her house. Fire was extinguished by her neighbour Padeshwar (PW-1) and one Purushottam. She was brought to Police Station Bhanpuri where she lodged FIR vide Ex.P-1. She was sent to Community Health Centre, Bhanpuri for examination where she was examined by Dr. K.S. Paikra (PW13) vide Ex.P-11 who found following injuries: -

¶37

Both the hands were burn with injuries.

¶38

Skinpegled-off.

¶39

-1 Faeelsompletely burn with injuries; , ^

¶40

;f% > Back and chest burn.

¶41

Both the legsburri.

¶42

Percentage ofburhswas40-50%.

¶43

She was referred to MalTarani Hospital, Jagdalpur.

¶44

On'TB-3-2008, dying deelargtion pf Kum. Meera Kashyap was recorded by Nayab Tahsildar Laxniikant Banerjee (PW-9) vide Ex.P-8.

¶45

The investigating agen(^;seizedtone burnt towel from the appellant vide Ex.P-2. Burnt piece 6f cloth and jerry-can containing mixed petrol and kerosene oil were seized vide Ex.P-3. During the course of treatment, Kum. Meera Kashyap died on 2-4-2008 at 6.45 p.m.. Death was intimated to the police vide Ex.P-9. Morgue was recorded vide Ex.P-10. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-12. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-4, inquest overthe dead body ofthe deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-5,

¶46

Dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Mahsirani Hospital, Jagdalpur. Dr. S. Basak(PW-IO) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-7 and as per Ex.P-7, the doctor has noticed following injuries: -

¶47

^ •

¶48

Superficial healed burn on face & skull.

¶49

Septic wound & burn superficial on front of chest and both upper limbs. Pus on both upper limbs. Foul smell coming.

¶50

Superficial healed burn scar on chest near umbilicus abdomen.

¶51

Right thigh burn scar & pus formation on right low limbs.

yiiA'MBeifesiw?

—TJS0I£-a^^;^:

Page 3 of 6

Cr.A.No.222/2010

Healed burn scar and wound on left thigh. Pus formation and foul smell coming. About 60% burn.

¶58

Mode of death was septicemia as a result of 60% burn injuries.

¶59

Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P-14. Statements ofthe witnesses were recorded under Section 161 oftheCrPC.

¶60

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bastar at Jagdalpur where the trial was conducted by the Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jagdalpur..

¶61

In order to proveiEiithtlgujtt @f||the||q6(j;ys©d/appellant, the prosecution has examined|'as'!m;at|pa[S3iWBwitnessss|'||Tt)e||i§K;cused was examined under SeBtiorl 31!3 of the CrPC in which he deniecl t|jg cirBBmstances appearing

¶62

^^'agaihst him, pleaded innocence and false impliieatidnjn the crime in ,^ 1 question. He has exanini'iecl Dr.it-.L^Jhakur (DW-1) and'TOIanam Nag (DW2) who have deposecl|t|iattMe;appeIlant has also sustained'burn injuries on his both limbs and heaasaclnlitted in hospital on 17-3-2008 at 10.55 p.m, vide Ex.|Qs2. The deeeasgCsustained burn injuries. The appellant was trying to^pxtinguish WeffS'ce^wvl at the time of extinguishing fire, the appellant also sustairiiedl5um;injuries and was admitted in hospital.

¶63

lO.After providing oppOTtyoityifflBhearing to the parties, learned Sessions .Judge and Special ^3u8ge eeilwicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.

¶64

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

¶65

Learnedcounsel for the appellant vehemently argued that although as per law, after deathof the deceased, FIR Ex.P-1 lodged by her becomes dying declaration, but Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-8, the dying declaration recorded by Nayab Tahsitdar Laxmikant Banerjee (PW-9), are self-contradictory, they do not inspire confidence and are not trusfworthy. The appellant himself has sustained injuries during the course of extinguishing the fire. The deceased herself has poured oil and set herself ablaze for committing suicide. Even otherwise, as per case of the prosecution, the appellant was provoked by the deceased and then the incident took place. This shows that the appellant has not caused homicidal death pf the deceased with ihtent to commit murder ofthe deceased, but has committed the offence on sudden

..''".^•' ...

Page4of6

Cr.A.No.222/2010

provocation. Therefore, the act attributed to the appellant does not travel beyond the scopeof Section 304 Part-1 ofthe IPC. Learnedcounsel further argued that the appellant has not committed the offence on the ground of caste of the deceased, therefore, conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act are not sustainable under the law.

¶70

13.0n the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that dying declaration Ex.P-8, FIR lodged at the instance of the deceased vide Ex.P-1 and evidence of other witnesses whom she gave oral dying declaration are sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant has poured kerosene oil & petrol over the deceased and set her ablaze which by itself is suffj|3iBnt;|t|i|.|:)glfe tBeniact, that the appellant has caused hornKsjdalj.deatti'arnouhling t6 mi.iirde|;i|M|Nie deceased. Therefore, by cciitVicting & sentencing the appellant under ^<?tia| 302 of the IPC for $;!Gausing homicidal death amounting to murder of t|jell(teceased and by s|" convicting & sentei'lGijig tte apgellant under Section 3 (2)|!(v) l)f the Act, the trial Court has not c8mmj|ed^|anyMlegality.

¶71

In prder to appreciatertheiafguments advanced on behalfofthe parties.we havet&;examine the eviGlenoe adduced on behalf of the parties.

¶72

In the present case,,f:teatli;0f5deeeased Kum. Meera Kashyap as a result of burn injuries and itsleoiTipljcatjonsiMas not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellEinit. ^TO tie other hand, it is also established by evidence of Padeshwar (PW-1), Dhansai (PW-2), Harish (PW-3), FIR Ex.P1, evidence of Dr. S. Basak (PW-10), autopsy report Ex.P-7, evidence of Dr. K.S. Paikra (PW-13), injury report Ex.P-11, evidence of Laxmikant Banerjee (PW-9) - Nayab Tahsildar and dying declaration Ex.P-8, that deceased Kum. Meera Kashyap died as a result of burn injuries.

¶73

As regards complicity ofthe appellant in the crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of oral and written dying declaration.

¶74

17.As per evidence of Padeshwar (PW-1),.y •the deceased. . made dying declaration before him that the appellant has burnt her and the deceased has also lodged FIR Ex.P-1. Dhansai (PW-2) has also deposed that the deceased made dying declaration before him and be brought her to the hospital. Harish (PW-3) has also corroborated the evidence of Padeshwar (PW-1).

¶75

r^ Page5of6

¶76

Cr.A.No.222/2010

¶77

18.Laxmikant Banerjee (PW-9) has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased vide Ex.P-8. As per his evidence, the deceased stated before him and has given dying declaration which he has recorded after obtaining certificate from the doctor. Her fingers were also burnt, therefore, he obtained herthumb impression.

¶78

Defence has also examined Dr. L.L Thakur (DW-1) who has deposed that on 17-3-2008, the appellant was also admitted in the hospital, his hands were burnt and he was admitted vide bed head ticket Ex.D-2.. Tularam Nag (DW-2) has deposed that the appellant was trying to extinguish the fire of the deceased, but the deceased fled away from the house ofthe appellant. In para 3 of his evidence, he has further admitted that after purchasing articles he l^fcltteilslflpllBeMjoreU didnot know who caused burn injuries '

¶79

tothe^deGeasIclN'""'""""1 ""s ;S CII'W ».»:

¶80

ZO^EvKienSe of afbresaid witnesses, FIR Ex.P-lrwntten, dying declaration j=£Ex.P-8 and evidence of Dr. L.L, Thakur (DW-1) &s1'u|aram Nag (DW-2) reveal that the dieceased5si.t|tgined burn injuries in 'tlje house of the appellant. The apt:|eyant?fias^als6 sustained burn injuries upon his hand and legs and he was?alsb|ad(rutted in the hospital which are sufficientto estabtjsfi-the fact that|t('fe|cieeeased sustained burn injuries in the house of the appgllant. Both ttieHdyingiideclarations and evidence of Padeshwar (PW-1) & Dhansaii1(PW2)?are!|sufficient to establish the fact that the appellant has pouredsKel'jolgn'aioiland petrol over the deceased and set her

¶81

' ablaze. These evidence are sufficient to prove the fact that the appellant

¶82

has caused burn injuries to the deceased which was responsible for the death of the deceased and thereby he has caused homicidal death of the deceased.

¶83

21.As regards the question of motive, motive only aids in criminality andin caseof direct evidence it loses its importance. Motive can be inferred on the basis ofthe weapon used, part of the body effected, nature of injury and other similar circumstances.

¶84

22.Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has tried to

¶85

extinguish the fire of the deceased ahd during. the course of extinguishing fire, he himself sustained burns which appears to be true, but the fact remains that the appetlant has pouredkerosene oil and, thereafter, he has set the deceased ablaze. The appellant was having opportunity to save her, but he has set her ablaze, which shows that the appellant has caused homicidal death of the deceased with intent to cause her death. Therefore,

Page 6 of 6

^"•;

Cr.A.No.222/2010

by convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, the trial Court has not committed any illegality,

¶91

As regards conviction and sentences of the appellant under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act, as per FIR Ex.P-1 and evidence of other witnesses, the deceased was having love affair with the appellant, she used to stay in the house ofthe appellant and the appellant has caused homioidal death ofthe decea'sed when she requested the appellant for marriage which was denied by the appellant i.e. the cause of incident was request and denial of marriage and not the caste. Therefore, by convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act, the trial Court has committed an illegality,

¶92

24.Consequei3tly$t|ieaagp|al|ig|paN|'|altc®^d, Conviction and sentences imp6sed|ypon the appellant under Sectionp (2| |^v) of the Aet are hereby

¶93

¶94

£ymposed upon the apRellant^ under Section 302 ofithegPC are hereby affirmed. /'.^. 1;^[,Vi':^-^::'%'^i;j—z—so;—.

¶95

Soma

¶96

Sd/.&' SQ/T.P. Sharma Inder Singh Uboweja ^f' "Judge Judge

¶97

!•—,

Rajesh Shukla v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Shukla 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madavi Sukaluram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Sahu Vs State of C.G.

Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Smt. Ramvati Bai Thakur

Chowa Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramnath Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Posan Lal @ Poshan Lal Kashyap Vs Smt. Kirti Bai