Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC. The High Court rejected the appellant's accidental injury defense due to lack of corroboration upheld eyewitness testimony of assault with an iron plate and ordered dismissal of the appeal.
Appeal dismissed; no further order required as appellant is in jail.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1599 of 2015
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant. : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate. For Respondent. : Shri Ravindra Agrawal, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Judgment On Board
By Pritinker Diwaker, J 02/05/2017
This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in S.T. No.95/2007 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC & and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo S.I. for six months.
2
separately. On 27.06.2007 when Dhansai was working in his field, the accused/appellant committed murder of the deceased by causing injury on her head by iron door plate. Hiru Ram (PW/2), who witnessed the entire incident, immediately asked his son to pass on the said information to Dhansai, who in turn, immediately after coming to know about the incident reached the spot. At the instance of Dhansai (PW/1), un-numbered merg Ex.P/2 was recorded on 27.06.2007 at 10.30 am, on same day at 10.45 am dehati nalisi Ex.P/1 was recorded and numbered merg was also recorded vide Ex.P/17. Based on merg intimation (Ex.P/17), F.I.R. Ex.P/18 was registered on 27.06.2007 itself under Section 302 IPC against the accused/appellant. On 27.06.2007, inquest on the body of deceased was conducted vide Ex.P/7 and dead body was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Center, Dongargaon where postmortem examination on the body of deceased was conducted by Dr. S. S. Devdas (PW/10) who gave his report Ex.P/15 and found following injuries:-
The autopsy surgeon opined that the injuries were antemortem in nature and cause of death of deceased was due to shock resulting from intracranial hemorrhage.
3
framed against him by the trial Court.
(ii) That the accused/appellant has already remained in jail since 28.06.2007 and has almost completed 10 years of jail sentence. (iii) That even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out against him.
4
date of incident he had gone to his field. At about 8.00 am one Nammu came to him and told that accused/appellant Chain Singh has committed murder of his (this witness) wife. He has further stated that his wife deceased sustained injuries over back of head. At the place of occurrence, Surtiya Bhabi, Puniya Bai, Hiru, Shyam kalyan, Basanti etc were present and Hiru (PW/2) had told him that the accused/appellant caused injuries to his wife by iron door plate.
5
to deceased to be shock due to intracrenial hemorrhage. Gopi Ram (PW/11) was also present at the time of occurrence. He has stated that he saw the accused/appellant holding iron door plate in his hand. Sewak Ram Dhruv (PW/14) is Investigating Officer who has duly supported the prosecution case. Though on the memorandum of the accused/appellant (Ex.P/10), one iron door place was seized, however, there is no F.S.L. report on record. In the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused/appellant has taken specific defence that when he was hunting birds, all of a sudden deceased sustained injuries. But for this statement there is nothing on record to counter the statements of PW/2, PW/3 and PW/11, who saw the accused/appellant standing there holding iron door plate in his hand. 12. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on 27.06.2007 it is the accused/appellant who killed the deceased by causing injuries on her head by iron door plate. Hiru Ram (PW/2)- eye witness to the incident, in para 1, has stated that he saw the accused/appellant assaulting deceased by iron door plate on her head. In para 4 of his cross-examination, this witness remained very firm and reiterated the same thing. The version of this witness is well corroborated by the evidence of Shyam Kalyan (PW/3), Gopi Ram (PW/11), Dr S.S. Devdas (PW/10) and postmortem report Ex.15. The evidence of these witnesses is sufficient to infer that it is the accused/appellant who has caused death of deceased and we have no reason to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses. The defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their crossexamination to discredit their testimonies especially the fact that the
6
accused/appellant has not committed murder of deceased. The defence taken by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that while hunting birds the deceased suffered injuries has no force at all as no defence witness has been examined to substantiate this fact and not a single word has been uttered by the prosecution witnesses too in this regard. We also do not find any force in the argument of counsel for the appellant that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the accused/appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC. The evidence on record makes it abundantly clear that the appellant while assaulting the deceased on her vital part head with an iron plat was not only having intention to kill her but also had the knowledge that such bodily injury would certainly result in her death. Being so, his conviction under Section 302 of IPC cannot be faulted with.
Sd/- (Pritinker Diwaker) JUDGE
Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) JUDGE
Vijay
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's claim of accidental injury while hunting birds is credible given the eyewitness testimony.
Whether the evidence establishes intention to cause death under Section 302 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chain Singh
State Of Chhattisgarh
Pritinker Diwaker
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
