Dismissed

Ramnath Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2015CRA/320/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murdering his bride. The bench held that the circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony and the appellant's failure to explain injuries, proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Ramnath Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

;!¥£s

e ' *r'> .-.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No..'2-Z-c? ,/2010(D.B.).
APPELLANT Ramnath Verma, S/o. Deraha
(IN JAIL) Ram Verma, aged about 29 years,
R/o. Singarpur, Police Station
^
Sahaspur Lohara, District
Kabirdham (C. G.)
"^'
^«:^%^
VERSUSv
^...•••-•"
RESPONDENT Sfate of Chhattisgarh,
Through : P. S. Sahaspur Lohara,
Distt. Kabirdham, (C. G.)
CRIMINAL APPEAL UMDER^ECTIQN 374 (2) OF CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

¶5

¶6

Cr.A.No.320/10

¶7

HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

¶8

CRIMINALAPPEAL No. 320 of 2010

RAMNATH VERMA

—-Appellant

In Jail

Versus

STATE ORCHJ-f/m'lgSARH.

¶14

-—Respondent Memo of Appea! Under Section 374 (2) of th&G)&d&?of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ^rf.tf-l: For appellant ; r B? i {•A/lr.-Ramakant Pandey, Advocate For RespondenVState ^:;:j!l^Mr'.:Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Advoeate General

¶15

Hon'ble Shri JusticeT.;R.Sharma Hon'ble Shri Justice InderSintiHiUboweia, JJ.

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Judgment dictated on Board bv Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.P.Sharma

¶18

06.01.2015

¶19

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25"' March, 2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Sessions Case No. 11/2009 whereby and whereunder the Court below, after holding the appellant guilty for causing homicidal death amounting to murder of his Churied wife^- Nirmala Bai, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and 25 ofthe Arms '- Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and Rl for one year with

/-•"^t

Cr.A.No.320/10

fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo Rt for three months on each count.

¶26

Conviction isimpugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence against the appellant, the Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid and thereby committed illegality.

¶27

As,|a6|','Easei(%lltijg||:)EO;secE!ti®ii>fleisgasedNimala Bai was Churied wvSs ef the appellant, who used to qUari'e];ayifhrihe deceased. On 09:01.2009 at about 9.00 am, appellant was quarrelin&withdeceased^ deceased to house^oflj'A/V^'l 1 Sjltfarl Bai, her mother, for calling her father, but her father was nQt;present, ttien she came back to the house of the appellant where appellanCassaLilted her by knife and caused fatal injury. Then P.W.1 Janak Das;wenttc»,Police Station and lodged F.I.R. vide Ex.P.1. The deceased^was a9rei|tted in the Hospital, Sahaspur Lohara vide Ex.P.14 fortreatBienfwhiergishe was examined by P.W.14 Dr. Sanjay Kharsan and noticed the following injuries:

¶28

i. Stab wound over right side ehest b.felow the right breast of 2"

¶29

x 1 1/2" x 3".

¶30

ii. Stab wound on epigastric regiQn of 1 1'2" x 1" x 4".

¶31

iii. Stab wound on left lumber region of 2" x 1/2" x 3 1/2".

¶32

iv. Lacerated wound over left forearm of 3" x 1" x 1/2".

¶33

v. Lacerated wound below the left knee of 3" x 1" x 1/2".

¶34

vi. Lacerated wound on medial side of left knee of 2 1/2" x1 x 1/2".

Cr.A.No.320/1(}

vii. Lacerated wound on backside just above right buttocks of 1 1/2" x 1 x 1/2".

¶39

She was unconscious and was unable to give her statement. During the course of her treatment she died and death was informed to Police vide Ex.P.22A and merg was recorded vide Ex.P.22.

¶40

After sumjcnpntnggtfeieamjtn&sses vide Ex.P.2, inquest over the dead body:iWas'pFep ey"videEx.P.3:''Sp(SI:.s|'na|rwas,prepared vide Ex.P.4. 7Bloiodstained and plain soilswere recovered fronTiWspot vide Ex.P.5. Appellant was takamntocustodybn the same day andaaie knife was has been recovered frorri.th^appellant vide Ex.P.7. His doths were seized vide Ex.P.8. Deadibc>cly'was;sent for autopsy to Community Health Center, Sahaspur Lohara yide Ex.R.16. P.W.14 Dr. Sanjay Kharsan conducted autopsyivideiEx.P.1®-iakand fouhd the aforesaid injuries (as mentioned in para 3). "Rf» )de!:of death was opinetf to be hemorrhagic shock.

¶41

Cloths ofdeceased were segled and seized v<de Ex.P.6. Patwari prepared^{spotmapvideEx.P.9.} Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to F.S.L. vide Ex.P.21 and as per report of F.S.L. vide Ex.P.23, presence of blood over knifeseized fromthe appellant and his cloths has been conflrmed.

¶42

StatementsofwitnessesunderSection161oftheCodeofCriminal Procedyre, 1973 (for short 'the Code) were recorded.

¶43

¶44

Cr.A.No.320/10 4

¶45

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the C.J.M., Kawardha, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham.

¶46

In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The accused person was examined under Section 313 pf the Code in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and irtBi3GetS^amQ:S^sffv1[\pWs^ S:Si snme in qiiestion was claimed. The appellant also examined D.W.1 SantQshi; ,;another wife of the appellant, who has deposed one person was runnirig;fr0m,;her house after causing injury to deceasetfNirmalaBai and snatching golden chain from ' • -. herneck. .. ..?,.;M'?^...:;?^ . : '• •' . .

¶47

After providingiaiglopportuHity of hearing to the pari:ies, the .learned Sessions Judge . eonvieted ^.ancl spntenced the appellant as ; afbrementioned. ;,. 'j^:,a ^PT= :

¶48

We have heard the learned counsel-for the parties and perused the record of trial Court and the judgment impugried.

¶49

Mr. Ramakant Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence and in case of conviction based on circumstaritial evidence as held in the case of Kusuma Ankama Rao vs. Sfate ofA.P., 2008 AIR SCW 4669, the prosecution is required to satisfy the following

circumstances:

/?JB.^

Cr.A.No.320/10

the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;

¶57

ii. the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

¶58

jiii, ffiegoireumstaRces sWBialdfSe!., of a conclusive nature and 'tendency; ' * |?,':"!, ' K.

¶59

iv. they should exclude every possible flyBotFiesjs except the one taIbeiprQved^ andj;. " 4s

¶60

v. there must,tfeeaj;'ctiain.ofevidence so complete as not to leave any .teasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with thelnTJOGenGe;.Qf the accused and must show that in all humaniiprobahilify tHeact must have been done by the accusedR,?'^:,i 'a'^ .

¶61

In the present case, the prosecution ha.s failed to complete chain of circumstances sufficient to prove the fact that only the appellant was author of the crime and none else. Further, circumstances should be of such conclusive nature as to exclude every possibility of innocence. In the present case, prosecution has failed to complete chain of circumstances, even otherwise as per evidence of defence witness and prosecution witnesses, some other person snatehed the golden chain from the deceased and has committed her murder.

Cr.A.No.320/10

On the other hand, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Advocate General for the State, Qpposed the appeal and submissions while submitting that the evidence of P.W.11 Silvan Bai is only sufficierit to prove the guilt of the appellant, although mother of the appellant P.W.3 Kamla Bai has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile witness by the prosecution.

¶66

ln;pi'dej-;:tOs;a|pi®eiat|thejisaj-gu|lHerrts;eadvanced on behalf of the pacties,^{wehavetoexaminetheevidenceaiiclUGedonbehalfofthe} prosecution. In the present case, the homicidal deaft'i^a result of fatal injuries found ovei'^tBei!bcidy,of<3eceased - Nirmala Bai^has not been substantially disputed?©!ibeltalfof the appellant, but, on the other hand also established by thelevidence of P.W.1 Janak Das, P.W.2 Narottam, P.W.3 Kamla Bai and^.VV.-l't Silvan Bai, F.I.R. Ex.P.1 P.W.14 Dr. Sanjay Kharsan, autopsyT|iepoi-tcEx.P.lT4|and D.W.1 Santoshi Bai. Death of deceased - Nirmala Bai was liQmicidal in nature..

¶67

As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction is substantially based on circumstantial evidence. Initially, the present case was based on ocular evidence pf eye-witnesses but eyewitnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.3 Smt. Kamla Bai, mother of the appellant, was eye-witness but she did not support the c.ase of prosecution, which was not unnatural. P.W.11 Silvan Bai has deposed that she has witnessed the incident, but, in the light of her previous statement Ex.D.2, the trial Court has not considered her statement relating to witnessing the incident. As per her evidence, Just

:&-'

^—.;-»-ssS

Cr.A.No.320/10

prior to incident, deceased carrie to her house and informed to her that the appellant was quarrelingwith her, therefore, she came to her house for calling her father, i.e., husband of this witness. Upon being heard that her father was not present, she returned back to house of the appellant. Thereafter, this witness rushed to the house of the appellant where she saw the appellant causing injuries by knife to the deceased. Thereafter, Police personnel came there. Undisputedly, while disbelieving the first part^{ofher',,eviden£;e|B!af|B|ie!,hasi2'8viin^8sed,.the incident,thetrialCourt} has not committed any illegality, but, as per evideraee of this witness, to report the incident the deceased went to her houseianclEJnformed to her that the appellant was quaiTellirig?with her, thereafter the tleceased came back to her house whgi'eaSeFitheiGfeceased received fatal injuries. At that time, only appellant arid jdeceased were present in the house and no other persons were presen.t;;iiT;thB saidi house. The appellant has not lodged any report against aTiY ott'ter persan, inter alia, third person, i.e., P.W.1 Janak Das has lodgedRthieirepQBtMde Ex.P.1.

¶73

The aforesaid part of evidence inspires confidence and trustworthy and revealed that just before the incident, the appellant was quarrelling with the deceased, which the deceased informed to P.W.11 Silavan Bai whereupon P.W.11 Silavan Bai reached to the house of the appellant where shesaw the injured deceased and appellant. Only two persons were present in the house of the deceased and the appellant. The appellant has not lodged any report nor has offered any explanation that who has caused injuries resulting into homicidal death of deceased. D.W.1 Santoshi Bai is the first wife of the appellant. Her evidence cleariy

¶74

¶75

' Cr.A.No.320/10 8 : • .• • •

¶76

revealed that with a view to save her husband she has deposed the fact that some other person killed Nirmala bai but the fact remains is that the incident took place inside the village and there was no possibility for any third person to enter into and to design the conspiracy of murder of deceased. Therefore, her evidence does not inspire confidence and appears to be false as with a view to save the appellant she has deposed the false facts. Evidence of P.W.11 Silavan Bai further reveals that while quarrel]ingi*vif;htJTe.|leffiased,j th®l|a@pSllaig[t.anddeceased were present arid no ofher person was present, deceaseB rgceived injuries whereupon : the appellant has failed to offer any explanation. Q?.tl'ie evidence of P.W.11 Silavan Bai and^chain QfGinsumstances are considered together, then the only hypothBsis^ot.gyil): of appellant would be possible and exclude the possibility pfhis^jnnoGence.

¶77

¶78

After appreeiatin^ the^eyidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge has»,rigMy3canyicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we also do not find any illegality or infjrmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned.

¶79

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit &',d substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶80

Sd/'ncfe Sd/rsiy°^ eja •p- s(>arnia Judge

¶81

Anjani

¶82

N A.F.R

Ramnath Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnath Verma 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

Madavi Sukaluram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramlal Sahu Vs State of C.G.

Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Smt. Ramvati Bai Thakur

Rajesh Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chowa Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Posan Lal @ Poshan Lal Kashyap Vs Smt. Kirti Bai