Dismissed

Ramlal Sahu v. State of C.G.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2015CRA/657/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 34(2) CrPC against conviction for murder of his wife by poisoning, the High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the prosecution had proved the essential ingredients of the offence including motive and opportunity, and rejected the plea of no evidence, upholding the conviction and life sentence by the Sessions Judge.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Ramlal Sahu Vs State of C.G. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

‘ém‘v’gwkw ”WE“?

¶2

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

¶3

AT BILASPUR \ i ]^O v gCr.A.No. éag£ Ag^w

¶4

APPELLANT Ramlal Sahu S/o. Late Matukdhari ACCUSED gin iail! Sahu, Aged about — 25 year, R/o. # Khada Main Road, Police Station^~ . I vO0 W Patna, District — Kmea‘ (C^.G. ) $ VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh PROSECUTOR Through :D.M. Korea (Baikunthpur) District^~~ Korea (C.G.)

¶5

RESPONDENT PROSECUTOR

¶6

7 CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 34 (23 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

¶7

«WWW

¶8

1 HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTISGARH,BILASPUR} CRIMINAL^{APPEALNo.657of2010}

¶9

o RAMLAL^SAHU

¶10

—--- Appellant

¶11

Versus

¶12

r o STATE^{OFCHHATTISGARH}

¶13

---- Respondent

¶14

Memo of^{AppealUnderSection374} (2)^{oftheCodeofCrummal} Procedure 1973

¶15

For appellant pare! Advocate For Respon‘ nt/S ,^$1L’

¶16

ar^db Hoh'bie Mr.^{JusticeT.P.Sharma}

¶17

I 05.01.2015 i, x

¶18

Challenge: i o the judgment^{ofconvictionandorder} of-sentence dated passed by the Sessions Judge, Korea, place at Baikunthpur, ln Sessions Trial No. 80 / 2009 whereby and whereunder after^{holdingtheappellantguiltyforcausinghomicidaldeath} amounting to murder of his wife —- Sushma Sahu, the Court below convicted^{theappellantunderSection302ofthel.P.C.andsentencedhim} to imprisonment^forlife.-

¶19

2.. Conviction^{oftheappellantisimpugnedonthegroundthatwithout} therebeing^any iota of evidence^{againsttheappellant,theCourtbelow} convicted and sentenced the appellant^as aforementioned and thereby committed^illegality.

¶20

«,W m

¶21

.1 In

¶22

¶23

As per case of the prosecution, the appellant was suspecting upon the character of his wife Sushma Sahu. On account of such suspicion, on 12.04.2009, he administered poison to deceased, which was witnessed by P.W.6 Rahul and P.W.7 Pooja, son and daughter of the present appellant and deceased Sushma Sahu, who rushed to the house of P.W.1V Ram Padarath, brother of the deceased, to whom they informed, upon which, - ~ he rushed to the house of the appellant where his sister Sushma Sahu was present. Upon being asked, deceased made dying declaration that she also requested him to save ' r.upon P.W.1 Ram Padarath call e P.W.2 Ramadhar, h er brother of deceased, on telephon e 2 Ramadhar i mmediately came, e reafter, they brought her to Baikunthpur District Hospital wh er e was examined by Dr. G.D. Baghel, who noticed that she wa nconScious, pupils were congested, froth was ‘th coming from her m‘o and pulse as normal, pungent smell was coming from the breath. She wa ad ed for treatment vide EX.P.7 (Bed Head Ticket). She died at 2.30 pm on the same day. The intimation of death was sent to the Police vide Ex.P.9. Merg was recorded vide Ex.P.18 and EX.P.19 and finally F.l.R. was registered^videEx.P.22.

¶24

lnvestigation Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide^Ex.P.1, inquest over the dead body was prepared^videEx.P.2. Liquid lying on the floor, bottle and cap were seized from the spot vide Ex.P.4. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.12. Dead body was sent for autopsy to District Hospital Baikunthpur vide Ex.P..14. P.W.10 Dr.S.K.Gupta conducted autopsy vide Ex.P. 15 and found following symptoms:

¶25

3 Blood contained froth was^coming out from mouth and right nostril.

¶26

2 Mouth^{andeyesclosed.} 3‘ Post-modem^{tendernessonarmsandlegs.}

¶27

4 No external^{injurywasfoundoverthebody.} Mode of^{deathwascomaasaresultofpoisoning.}

¶28

Seized 5. Viscera was preserved,^{sealedandseizedvideEx.P.12.} articles^{weresenttoF.S.L.forchemicalanalysisvideEx.P.29.}

¶29

Statements^{ofwitnessesunderSectlon}

¶30

Prooedure,¹⁹⁷³ (for^{shortr:‘rtheCode)wererecord} e

¶31

_ After compl e _ i on, charge^{sheetwasfiledbeforethe} C.J.M.,^Korea,whoI: n rn committed^{thecasetotheCourtofSessions,} Korea (Baikunthpur )

¶32

In order to proye ,4; if the appellant, prosecution^examinedas many^{as20witnesses.} The accused person^{andco-accusedNarbadia} in which^{theydeniedthe} were examined^{underSection313oftheCode} circumstances^{appearingagainsthimand} innocence and^{falseimplication} They have^{alsoexaminedonedefence} in crimeⁱⁿ question^wasclaimed. witness^{namelySanjayJaiswalD.W.1,whohasdeposedthattherewas} dispute^{betweentheappellantandRamadharandRamPadarathrelating} to taking of paddy, pump and mobile, for which, the deceased got annoyed^andconsumed poison.

,v ‘

After providing^{anopportunityofhearingtothe} parties,^thelearned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.

¶37

We have heard the^{learnedcounselforthe} parties^{andperusedthe} record of^{trialCourtandthejudgmentimpugned.}

¶38

Mr. Punit Ruparel, learned counsel for the appellant,^vehemently ..... argued t is based on alleged dying Th defence has examlne D.W.1 Sanjay ”osed Jaiswal; who has a p that deceased^was unhappy on account of behavio^u p^a m Padarath^{andP.W.2Ramadhar,wh} o o bile from the^appellant, therefore, she e r death and the appellant has not administered poisonato, a __ e ceased. P.W.6 Rahul and^{P.W.7Pooja,son} and daughter^{oftheappellantanddeceasedwerepresentatthetimeof} incident, but they^{havenotsupportedthecaseofprosecution.} Evidence of prosecution^{witnessesisnotsufficientfordrawinganyinferencethatthe} appellant was in possession^of poison,^{hewashavinganopportunityto} administer the point^{andhasadministeredthe} poison. ln absence^ofsuch proof^{ofaforesaidessentialingredientsoftheoffence,theconvictionofthe} appellant under^{Section302ofthel.P.C.isnotsustainable.}

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant heavily placed reliance upon EX.P.9, which^{isanintimation} given^{bytheDoctortoPoliceandsubmitted} that at that tlme she^was not in conscious, therefore, the prosecution

¶40

5 ought to have^{recordedherdyingdeclaration.which} it has failed to^record, and as such,^{suspicionwascastupontheconductoftheprosecution.}

¶41

¶42

On the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Mishra, learned counsel for the State, opposed^{theappealandsubmittedthattheevidenceofP.W.1Ram} Padarath and^{P.W.2Ramadhar,brothersofthedeceased,} is' sufhcient^for drawing an inference that deceased^hadmadedying declaration to the effect that the^{appellanthadadministered} poison to her and^causedher

¶43

ln order to a n behalf of the ‘f parties, we havefto evidence adduced o, behalf of the prosecution. ln t h" _ e , the homicidal death as a result of poison^todeceased Sushma ahu has not^{beensubstantiallydisputed} on behalf of^theappell t‘butpfonthe other^{handalsoestablishedbythe} evidence of^P.W.1 ? P .W.2 Ramadhar,^{P.W.3ChampaBai,} P.W.6 Rahul and^P. ,_ a a well as defence^{witnessSanjayJaiswal} intimation by Doctor to Police Ex.P.9, bed head ticket Ex.P.7, (D.W.1), merg intimation^{Ex.P.18andEx.P.19andF.l.R.Ex.P.22.} As per evidence of aforesaid witnesses and defence witness Sanjay Jaiswal, it is established that^{deceaseddiedasaresultofpoisoning.}

¶44

14‘ As^{regardscomplicityoftheappellantincrimeinquestion,asper} the case of prosecution, the appellant has administered poison. The Supreme Court in the case of^{SharadBirdhichandSarda} V. State of Maharashtra,^{AIR1984SC1622,heldthatincaseofconvictiononthe}

¶45

A A: dNv ;a “.M X

¶46

6 is requiredto prove^the basis of administration^of poison,^{theproSecution}

¶47

following circumstances:

¶48

(1)^{thereisciearmotiveforanaccusedtoadministerpoisonto}

¶49

the deceased,

¶50

(2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered.

¶51

(3)^{thattheaccusedhadthepoisoninhis‘posSession,}

¶52

opportunity^{toadministerthe} poison^tothe (4)^thathehadan

¶53

,f‘;

¶54

i^{sontohismotherwhereuponherushed} she was present. As per information^he th rice and was administered by the ng declaration before him that the Ki appellant^hasadmi n n d she also^{requestedhimtosaveher} then he called^{uponhisbrotherbytelephonewhereuponP.W.2Ramadhar} also came to the spot by motorcycle, before whom also the deceased made dying^declaration. Both the^witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 Ram Padarath and P.W.2 Ramadhar brought her to Hospital by motorcycle, but the appellant did not come to the Hospital. Even he did not attend the cremation. The defence^{hascross-examinedthesewitnessesatlength.} ln their cross~examination. they have specifically admitted the administration^of poison^{buthavedeniedthesuggestionthatonaccountof} their dispute^{withtheappellant,thedeceasedconsumedpoison.} D.W.1 Sanjay Jaiswal^{hadspecificallydeposedthatonaccountofsomebusiness} transaction, deceased was got annoyed and consumed poison, i.e.,

¶55

v 7 witnesses of both the parties have specifically deposed that deceased died as a result^of poison. As per evidence^ofD.W.1 Sanjay Jaiswal,_he was not present^{atthetimeofanytransaction.} Even his evidence^does not whisper that^{therewasanydisputeregardingreturnofarticles.} w

¶56

P.W.6 &⁷ are^{sonanddaughteroftheappellantbuttheyhavenot} supported the case of prosecution. They are minors residing with the appellant, therefore, it was not unnatural^{forthemnottosupportthecase} ceased was in conscious,’ p r evidence of P.W.8^Dr.G. B a who has attended^the ‘ red for the^firsttime, deceased^{wasunconsolou} s pp^ellantalso admitted that he d eceased to the H V tal. He^has ‘of f incident. Evidence P.W.1 Ram as clearly revealed^{thatdeceasedhas} _ appellant has administered poison. Ex.P.4, seizure^of émp t ottle of Qemocran,^{aninsecticide} poison,^further supports the^case ofgg/pnosecution that husband (appellant) of deceased was in a position^to possess^the poison. Democran poison^wasalsolying upon the^floor,which was^{seizedvideEx.P.4.}

¶57

Circumstances^{andevidenceofP.W.1} Ram Padarath and^P.W.2 Ramadhar revealed^{thatonaccountofsuspicionuponthecharacaterof} deceased, the appellant was having motive, he was in a position to possess^{andhehasadministeredthepoisontodeceased.} He was also having an opportunity of administering the poison. lf the aforesaid circumstances^aretaken into consideration,^then it can easily and^safely

¶58

¶59

be inferred that appellant was the person who administered the poison and caused homicidal death of his wife Sushma Sahu.

¶60

After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. On close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶61

' d of merit, is liable to be and

¶62

5d/-
T.P. Sharmar
Judge

¶63

Sdllnder Singh ‘Ubowe ja Judge

¶64

mJ am
x./.
AFR
(V

Ramlal Sahu v. State of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramlal Sahu v. State of C.G.

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

Fakir Bhatra Vs State of C.G.

Ghanshyam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Hedau Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Madavi Sukaluram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

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.