Appeal against conviction for murder and Sections 498-A IPC. The High Court noted lack of evidence placing appellants at the scene, acquitting them of murder for benefit of doubt, but upheld the conviction for cruelty.
Accused acquitted of Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC; conviction under Section 498-A IPC maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR
CRA N0. 202 of 2003
l. Sfuresh S/o Arjun Kurmi (Chandravanshi), aged 27 years. 2. NareshS/oArjunKurmi (Chandravanshi),aged29years. 3. Afrjun S/o Awadhram Kurmi (Chandravanshi), aged 52 years. All R/o ViHage Kanjheta, RS. Kunda, District Kawardha.
‘ r Appellants ‘ ‘ -, Versus wt l. State Of Chhattisgarh Through — The S.H.O., P.S. Kunda, District Kawardha ---- Respondent g For Appellants. .S. Ahiuwalia, Advqcate. For Respondent. ivek Sharma, G.A.
Hon' b e . Pritinker Diwaker Hon'ble'Shrldustlcexchandra Bhushan Bajpai
Judgment On Board By
Dritinkpr niwa knr .1 13IO6I20 16
This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2003 passed by the Ilnd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Mungeli, District Bilaspur, in S.T. No.403/2000 convicting the accused/appellants under Sections 498—A/34, 302/34 and 201 IPC & and sentencing them to undergo R.l. for three years with fine of Rs.500/—, imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.IOOO/— and O R.l. for seven years with fine of Rs.5_00/-, plus default stipulations.
@
2
(Jet)h whereas appellant N o 3-Arjun is father-in—law of the deceased It Is } alleged that on 12 09 2000 deceased Droupadl Bal died In her l matimonialr h ouse after suffermg 96% burn Injunes Idmmeiately after the i ncident, merg intimation (EXP/11) was lodged by appellant No.2Narsh. Inquest o n the dead body of deceased was conducted vide e Ex.P/2: and thereafter dead body was sent for postmortem to District Mecaldi Officer, Pnradaiya vdie Ek/Q.P Postmortem examination on the body of dceeased was conucdted on 1.09.20300 by Dr. V.P. Jaiswal ()PW/10 who gave his report EX.P/1-"‘i0opi n g the cause of ‘ death to‘ be asphyxi 7 thengri and death was hcomiidal in nate.ur After merg in qui re d FIR ( Ex.P/7-A) was registered agastin the accused/a 16.09.2000 under Sections 302/34, 201 and 498-A/34 of iP herteeafr numbered FIR (E.P/7)x was also registered against t accused/appellants. After invstigation,e charge sheet was filed agaistn th e accused/appellants under Sections 302/34, 498—A, 201 and 304-B IPC, however, while framing the charges the t rial Judge'has fradme the charges against them under Se ctions 304-B/498—A in altnativeer of Section 302 read with section 34 and 201 IPC. 03. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also r ecorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in th e prosecution case, pleaded innocenc e and false implication. The accused/appellants examined four defence witnesses in support of their c ase.
3
04 . The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record has acquitted the acused/appellantsc of the charge of Section 304—8 IPC & convicted an d sentenced them as m entioned in para—1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. :
O6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by learned counsel for the State that as per the postmortem, r report the death was h omicidal in nature and the accused/appellants bengi inmates o f the house have rightly been convicted by the'Court below.
O7. >We havhearde’ learned counsel for the partiesand perusedthe
x?VL<br>
materialavailableonrecord.
r t
l l I {
‘*
‘d 09. UrmilaBai (PW /7 hostile. Tulsirani' (PW/5),neighbour of the appellantsand ; as statedthatinthemorninghesaw the deceasedcross i: n'd at about 9.00 am he was informed by one ChhotuRamthat thedeceasedhasexpiredaftersustainingburn injuries. He hasfurtherstatedthatthedoorwasclosedfrominsideand He hasalsostatedthatatthe the smellofburningoffleshwascoming. ‘relevant time appellants were in their field and one Sushilwasaskedto goand inform the appellantsaboutthe incident.A.P. Prajapati (PW/6) registeredunnumbered (Ex.P/7—A)andnumberedFIR(EXP/7). Kunjlal KalindriBai (PW/9)motherofthe (PW/8)recordedthemergintimation. deceasedhasmadealmostsimilarstatementashasbeenmadebyhe; V.P. Jaiswal (PW/10)the autopsysurgeon, husbandFaguwa(PW/1). who conducted postmortemonthebodyofthedeceasedvideEXP/10, has opinedthatthecause of death of deceasedwasasphyxiadueto smdtheringandthedeathwashomicidalinnature.
@
6
the relevant time appellants were also in their house where deceased died} after suffering 96% burn injuries. Evidence also reflects that at the time 0f incident, deceased was all alone in the house. Thus, desp‘iite the fact that the deceased died homicidal death, it cannot be i _ , . said lthat it is the accused/appellants who committed her murder. There is no conclusive evidence in respect of the offence under Sections ‘ 302/34 and 201 iPc as asic I'gredients of those SectiOns are not proved‘ hy,the pro beyon a reasonable doubts as required under the law. However, considering the evidenkceZOf Faguwa (PW/l)rather, Kaiindri Bar f” o mai, Prasad (PW/2);_and Sushii Kumar (PW/3)—uncle e d, it is.apparent that the deceased was subjected to crue l pellants. 13. Having regard g of the case, in particular the nature of evidence add u t c ution and the statements of the witnesses, we are of th‘econsidered opinion that the Court below was fully justified in convicting the accused/appellants under Section 498A/34 IPC. However, the findings recorded by the Court below holding .the accused/appellants guiltyunderSections 302/34 and 201 IPC on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution suffer from illegality and, therefore, the benefit of‘doubt must go to the accused/appellants in relation to this charge. 14. ln the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the accused/appellants under Section 498-A/34 IPC is hereby maintained. The accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC by extending them benefit of doubt. As informed to this Court, the accused/appellants have already remained in jail for
7
mofe than three years and as such haveV already completed the } sedtenceimposed upon them under the said section by the Court below. The accused/appeHantsarereportedtobeonbail. They need notlto send backto jail: ’ l ’ ~ l \ 9f (c.B.B}mai) (pritinkeroiwaker) JUDGE x xJUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused could be convicted under sections 302/34 and 201 IPC of IPC given that there was no evidence placing them at the scene of the incident.
Whether the accused should be acquitted of the murder charge and benefit of doubt extended due to lack of conclusive evidence.
Whether the conviction under Section 498-A IPC should be maintained despite the acquittal on murder charges.
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh S/o Arjun Kurmi
Naresh S/o Arjun Kurmi
Arjun S/o Awadhram Kurmi
State Of Chhattisgarh
Pritinker Diwaker
Shridustlcexchandra Bhushan Bajpai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
