Dismissed

Madavi Sukaluram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2015CRA/319/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction and life sentence for murder, the High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected the appellant's challenge regarding unreliable eyewitness testimony. The court held that the corroboration from other witnesses and the nature of injuries sustained by the victim established guilt, affirming the Sessions Court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; original conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC confirmed.

Madavi Sukaluram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

r° •'^B?

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

Criminal Aupeal No.319/2010(D.B.)

¶4

APPELLANT Madvi Sukalu Ram S/o Pandu (In Jail) Ram, Aged about 30 years, R/o Village Gumda, Kotwar Para, Police Stadon : Geedam, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Through : Station House Officer, Police Station : Geedam,

¶7

District : Dantewada (C.G.)

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE

¶9

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973

¶10

Cr.A.No.319of2010 Page 1 of 6

¶11

HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶12

DIVISIONfiElMCH: 1

¶13

Coram: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHARIVlA & HON'BLE MR.I.S. UBOWEJA, JJ.

¶14

Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2010

Appellant (injail)

Madvi Sukalu Ram

Versus

ResDondent State of Chhattisgarh

¶19

(GRIMINAL.^Rp'giajl.lUNDER SECTlWjIj'-i^) QF THE CODE OF - . : .,•."1, % ^CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1i97S) , ,

¶20

PresSilffis?

¶21

Mr, C.R. Sahy, couasel fpFtheappellant. •Mr. Sumeet Jhanwai'.^Papel.t-awyer for the State.

¶22

UUDGIVIENT ^Q5;01.2015)

¶23

PerT.P.Sharma, J.:-

¶24

Challenge in this appeaiFis WWe'judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 31.03.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewara, in Sessions Trial No.258/2007, whereby & whereunder after holding the appellant guilty for causing homicidal death amounting to murder of his father-in-law Kawasi Chhannu (since^{deceased),convictedtheappellantunderSections302ofthe} I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine ofRs.500/-.

¶25

2 .

¶26

Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted &'sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.

¶27

Cr.A. No.319of2010 Page2of6

¶28

As per thecase of prosecution, in the intervening night of 27.08.2007 and 28.08.2007, uhfortunate deceased Kawasi Chhannu was sleeping in his veranda. Balmati (PW/3), daughter of the deceased was present inside the room. At 11:30 pm, appellant came with axe and caused injuries over the head of deceased resulting into his instanfaneous death. Balmati (PW/3), wife of appellant, has witnessed the incident, who went to the house of her brother Kawasi Sudaru (PW/4) whom she informed the incident, thereafter, they came back tos|!heiIiQi6jsc§nirf|s= ?1ffii§;ici@;adbody of deceased. <A^ Panctiayat rneeting was convened on 28.08.2QQ7.at:about 12:30 pm. ^awasi Sudaru- (PW/4) went to the police statjon, Gidam'and lodged F.1.R. vide ExP/8 and merg was recorded vide Ex.P/9. Tnvestigating Officer left for the scene of occarrence and after summoning the witnesses, inquest over the deat] body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P/12. Spot;mapssvas'prepared vide Ex.P/10. Bloodstained soil and plain soil were reeovered:from the spot vide Ex.P/3. Clothes of deceased were sealed and seized vide Ex.P/4. Dead body of deceased was sent for autopsy to Community Health Center, Gidam vide Ex.P/1-A, where Dr. H.L. Thakur (PW/1) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/1 and found following injuries:-

¶29

(i) Incised wound over pinna of right ear of 2 %" x 5cm x 1 ". (ii) Incised wound over right temparo oceipital region of 2 1/2" x 5cm x 1".

¶30

(iii) Incised wound over left temporo occipital region of 2 1/2" x 6cm x%". ;

¶31

(iv) Superficial burn injury over left wrist.

¶32

(v) Fracture oftemporal and temporo ofoccipital bone,

¶33

.Mode ofdeath was shock and death was homicidal in nature.

¶34

During the courseof investigation, appellant was taken into custody.

¶35

He made disclosure statement of axe vide Ex.P/7 and same.was

¶36

Cr.A.No.319of2010 Page;3 of6

¶37

recovered at his instance vide Ex.P/5. Bloodstained clothes of appellant were seized vide Ex.P/6. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Raipur vide Ex.P/19.

Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197S (for short the 'Code'). After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Dantewara, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Dantewara.

¶44

In order to p;rQ»ei:hei2guMnpfithe^ae|use<A(appellant, prosecution has exarBmecl sis many as 8 witnesses. Accusecl/appellant was examined ^l.it'itSer^{Section313ofthe} Code,^{wherehedeniedfhe} Gireumstances " appearing against;him & jnhoEence and false implication in the crime in question is claimed. " • ^

¶45

After providing opporturfit^ofhearing to.the parties, learned Sessions Judge, convicted & senteBlced the appellant as aforementioned.

¶46

We have heard learned?®utiselforthe parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court.

¶47

Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction is substantially based on the evidence of Balmati (PW/3),^{wifeofappellantanddaughterofdeceased,whichdoesnot} inspire confidence and trustworthy. As per her evidence, she has witnessed the incident from insidethe house, but as per her crossexamination, she has witnessed the incident from Mahuwa tree, 35 feet away from the place of incident. There was no facility of light, it was dark night and there was no possibility to witness the incident. Her evidence is based on hypothesis, which is not admissible in

¶48

Cr.A.No.319of2010 Page 4 of 6

¶49

evidence, even otherwise, there was no motive for cdmmission of ' offence. .. :

¶50

On the other hand, Mr. Sumeet .Jhanwar, tearned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the appeal and submitted that evidence Qf Balmati (PW/3),^whose presence^{inherhousewasnotunnatural,issufficient} for drawing an inference that appellant has caused homicidal death amounting to murder of his father-in-law deceased Kawasi Chhannu. On the basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court has rightly conviGted anfl ^ntgn^ea t('je,;aR@%llant as aforementioned,

¶51

¶52

In Erigp tS Sppreciate the arguments siclvanced^on behalf of the ^arti'es, we have to examine the evidence adduiseds:©n behalf of 'prosecution. : ^ J.;,::'1:',

¶53

In the present case, h6miei3al death as a result of fatal injuries found over the vital part of Uie ^eseased Kawasi Chhannu has not been substantially disputed^on'heltaffi.alzthe appellant, on the other hand, same is also establisRSdSffiy tlie evidence of Balmati (PW/3), Kawasi Sudaru (PW/4), Medha Ram (PW/5), FIR (Ex.P/8), Merg (Ex.P/9), evidence of Dr. H.L. Thakur (PW/1) and autopsy report (Ex.P/1) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature.

¶54

¶55

¶56

As regards complicity of the appellant in the crime in question, conviction of appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Balmati (PW/3). As per her evidence, at the time of incident she was sleeping in her room and her father deceased Kawasi Chhannu was sleeping in veranda. At the time of inddent, she had not gone for sleep..- Appellant camewith axe and caused repeated injuries over the head of deceased. She has deposed in para 4 of her evidence that she has witnessed the incident in the electric light. In para 8 of

¶57

Cr.A. No.319of2010 Page 5 of 6

¶58

¶59

her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that present appellant was shouting at the time.of coming to her house. She has further denied that she fled from the spot. In paras 9 and 10 of her cross-examination, she has admitted that she.saw the appellant, thereafter, she fled near the Mahuwa tree and was hiding herself behind the Mahuwa tree, which was 35 feet away from the place of incident. After leaving her hpuse by the appellant, she along with Kawasi Sudaru (PW/4) went to her house where they saw the dead body of her fa|t(iel|SKas^iii^tidaFffi|BW4^,and Medha Ram (PW/5) have;|deposed~ that. incident was informed by|Batn"iati to them, who ,ats®;;ihformed that she has witnessed the incideFri .jra.iithe light of chimni/moon. Defence has Gross-exarriined these witnesses at length. In their cross-exai-ninatien, they have specifically deposed that appellant came tqi; e t'ioi-fse of deceased, appellant caused injuries to the deceased j^axe; Balmati (PW/3) has witnessed the incident and has also infeirined'WKawasi Sudaru (PW/4) and Medha Ram (PW/5). Presence of Balmati (PW/3) in her house at the time of incident was natural. As per evidence of Balmati (PW/3),Kawasi Sudaru (PW/4) and Medha Ram (PW/5), there was facility of light and Balmati (PW/3) has witnessed the incident in the availability of light. She has immediately informed the incident to her brother. Evidence of Balmati (PW/3) is corroborated by the evidence of Kawasi Sudaru (PW/4) and Medha Ram (PW/5) which inspire confidence and trustworthy. Their evidence are sufflcient for drawing an inference that present appellant has caused homicidal death of deceased. As regards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence motive losses its importance, even otherwise, motive only aids in criminality

¶60

¶61

Cr.A. No.319of2010 Page 6 of 6

¶62

Vlaa.^-'l '^%^@s^"

¶63

and can be inferred on the basis of nature of injury, kind of weapon used, partofthe body effected and other similar circumstances.

¶64

In the present case, as per case of prosecution, appellant came to the house of deceased at 11:00 pm at night and caused multiple injuries by axe, thereafter, he left the house of deceased. Aforesaid fact clearly reveals that appellant came in order to cause homicidal death of deceased. He caused homicidal death of deceased and after causing homicidal death appellant again left the house of deceased, whichshowsAisIlgitiyfanftentiQw'fQif^ca.using homicidal death of s 'uf. deceased atnounting to murder. : ;

¶65

.16. ;;!While convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 of

¶66

" "the IPC, the trial Court has riof GOTOmitted any illegality OFinfirmity.

¶67

Consequently, the ap|:>eatibeing devoid of merits is liable to be

¶68

dismissed and is herebyjdismjssed.

Sd/-

Sd/-

T.P. Sharma

Inder Singh Uboweja Judge

¶73

Judge

¶74

Vyay.

Madavi Sukaluram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madavi Sukaluram 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

Fakir Bhatra Vs State of C.G.

Ghanshyam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Hedau Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramlal Sahu Vs State of C.G.

Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Smt. Ramvati Bai Thakur

South Eastern Coalfields Limited And Anr. Vs The Genral Secretary, M.p.koyla Mazdoor Sangh And Ors.