Dismissed

Shivprasad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2022CRA/13/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against a murder conviction. The court held that the evidence, including eyewitness testimony and an extra-judicial confession indicating prior motive, proved intentional killing beyond reasonable doubt, rejecting arguments of sudden impulse.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal against judgment and sentence in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2012 was dismissed, upholding the conviction and life imprisonment.

Shivprasad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 8

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Judgment Reserved on : 22.02.2022 Judgment Delivered on : 03/03/2022

¶5

CR.A. No. 13 of 2013

¶6

Shivprasad, S/o. Late Vishwanath Kanwar, aged about 37 years, R/o. Dakaipara, P.S. Patna, Distt. Koriya C.G.

¶7

---- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. - Patna, Distt. Koriya C.G. ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Himanshu Kumar Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant & Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

¶8

C A V JUDGMENT

¶9

Per Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.

¶10

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koriya (Baikunthpur), District Koriya, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2012, whereby and where-under, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/with default stipulation.

¶11

According to the prosecution case on 12.02.2012 at about 9.00 PM, Chhattar Sai (deceased) and the appellant went to the house of Dhirendra Kumar (P.W.-8) to perform some rituals. All of them

¶12

Page 2 of 8

¶13

collected the materials for performing Pooja and went to place called Dubatiya. Chhattar Sai (deceased) was performing the rituals it was at that time, the appellant exclaiming that “today I have got the opportunity”, assaulted the deceased – Chhattar Sai with axe and inflicted four injuries on his neck and head, as a result of which, Chhattar Sai died on the spot.

¶14

Morgue intimation (Ex.P-15) was lodged by the Chandrabhan Singh (P.W.9) and he also lodged the FIR (Ex.P-16). Offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. Inquest procedure was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. Inquest report is (Ex.P-2). Postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. A.K. Sharma (P.W.-4), who vide his report (Ex.P-11), opined that the cause of death is cardio respiratory arrest, which resulted from multiple injuries on the body of the deceased and the nature of death was homicidal. The appellant/accused was apprehended and interrogated, who gave statement on memorandum vide (Ex.P-4). At the instance of the appellant, an axe was seized from the place indicated by the appellant vide (Ex.P-5). Clothes worn by the appellant at the time of incident were seized vide (Ex.P-7). Formal arrest of the appellant was made vide (Ex.P-6). Spot map was prepared vide (Ex.P-8) by Patwari. Blood stained soil and plain soil was seized from the place of incident vide (Ex.P-9). The seized articles were sent for examination, which was examined by the Dr. A.K. Sharma (P.W.-4), who has reported vide (Ex.P-12) opining that the seized weapon could be used to cause injuries that were

¶15

Page 3 of 8

¶16

found present on the neck of the deceased. Crime details form was prepared vide (Ex.P-19). The articles were sent for FSL examination, but there is no FSL report received and produced in the Court. The statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed, before the Court concerned.

¶17

After the committal proceeding, the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence and framed charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded innocence and false implication and prayed for trial. The prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. On completion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating evidence present against him and again pleaded innocence and false implication. Opportunity was taken for examining witnesses in defence, but no witness was examined in defence. The learned Sessions Judge after giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and the defence has delivered the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant in the manner mentioned herein-above.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction against the appellant is erroneous and bad in law. Witnesses of prosecution had not been reliable and trustworthy, their statements are full of contradictions and omissions. The testimony of Investigating Officer, Inspector O.P. Kujur (P.W.-12) is full of discrepancies, hence, is unbelievable. It is further submitted

¶19

Page 4 of 8

¶20

by the learned counsel for the appellant that the incident alleged in this case is a sudden act. The appellant had went to the spot on being asked by the complainant – Chandrabhan Singh (P.W.-9) and in-fact he was helping the deceased -Chhattar Sai in making arrangement for Pooja and because of some sudden instinct, the act was committed, which can not be said to be an act committed with some motive or preparations. Therefore, the incident appears to be highly improbable and the narrations of the witnesses is doubtful. Conviction can not be held only on the basis of the suspicion. It is submitted that in case of Sangili Alias Sanganathan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (2014) 10 SCC 264 , the Supreme Court has held that suspicion however strong can not be a substitute of proof.

¶21

Reliance has also been placed on the the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in (2011) 14 SCC 117 , State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajaram , reported in 2003 AIR SCW 4097 , Podyami Sukada Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh), reported in 2010 AIR SCW 4809 , Arjun & Anr. Vs. State of C.G. , reported in (2017) 3 SCC 247 , State of Rajasthan Vs. Poona Ram & Ors. , reported in (2016) 12 SCC 501 , Arjun Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2012) 5 SCC 53 and in case of Ahmed Shah & Anr Vs. State of Rajasthan , reported in (2015) 3 SCC 93 . It is submitted that the appellant is entitled for acquittal, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set-aside. It is further prayed that, in case, this Court does not feel inclined to acquit the appellant,

¶22

Page 5 of 8

¶23

the conviction and sentence against him may be reduced on this basis that the offence is not made out under Section 302 of I.P.C.

¶24

Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the prosecution has very clearly proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There is clear and categorical eyewitness account given by Chandrabhan (P.W.-9). Dhirendra Kumar (P.W.8) was immediately informed about the incident by Chandrabhan (P.W.-9). The seizure of axe was made from the appellant on the basis of the memorandum statement, therefore, the proof against the appellant was completed on the basis of the eye-witness account and also the proof of circumstantial evidence. The conviction against the appellant is sustainable and appeal is liable to be dismissed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Parvat Singh Vs. State of M.P . in Cr.A. No.1313 of 2009 delivered on 15.05.2020 .

¶25

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record of the trial Court.

¶26

Death of the deceased – Chhattar Sai on account of injuries inflicted on his neck and head has been proved by Dr. A.K. Sharma (P.W.-4), regarding which, there is no specific challenge in this appeal. As per his statement, death of the deceased was homicidal, which is also unchallenged and no issue has been raised regarding the same in this appeal. Hence, this part of proof brought by the prosecution needs no scrutiny in this appeal.

¶27

Page 6 of 8

¶28

Appellant was the person, who inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased has been proved by statement of Chandrabhan (P.W.9), who was present on the spot, whose presence on the spot is unchallenged. He has very clearly stated that at the time of performance of rituals by the deceased Chhattar Sai, the appellant said that “I have got this opportunity today” and inflicted injuries on neck and head of the deceased. This part of the statement has remained unrebutted in cross-examination. Chandrabhan (P.W.-9) has further stated that he asked the appellant, why he has killed the deceased, on which, the appellant stated that he was harassed by the deceased, his hands and feet have become senseless that is why, he has killed him. In cross-examination, he has denied the adverse suggestions, however, no suggestion was given with respect to the statement of reason to kill the deceased made by the appellant and therefore, this statement made by the appellant to Chandrabhan (P.W.-9) has remained un-rebutted in the cross-examination. This is not only an extra judicial confession made by the appellant before the Chandrabhan (P.W.-9), it also mentions the motive, that the appellant felt harassed because of exorcism practiced by the deceased. Otherwise also, no such admission made by Chandrabhan (P.W.-9) in his crossexamination or any statement present, on the basis of which, it can be held that he is unreliable witness or that he has any personal interest to make such statement against the appellant.

¶29

Dhirendra Kumar (P.W.-8) has stated that he was narrated by the Chandrabhan (P.W.-9) about the incident. This statement has remained unrebutted and there is no reason present on the basis

¶30

Page 7 of 8

¶31

of which, he should have been disbelieved. Hence, immediate narration received by the Dhirendra Kumar (P.W.-8) from eyewitness Chandrabhan (P.W.-9) is the circumstance in corroboration of evidence of Chandrabhan (P.W.-9).

¶32

O.P. Kujur (P.W.-12) has stated that he interrogated the appellant, who gave statement that he has kept the axe in the wheat field and he will get the same recovered. Memorandum statement (Ex.P-4) was recorded for the same. Later on, it was the appellant, who brought axe and produced, which was seized vide Ex.P-5. The witness of this procedure is Lalchand (P.W.-1), who has supported the statement of Investigating Officer, O.P. Kujur (P.W.12).

¶33

On making scrutiny of the quality of evidence of these witnesses Chandrabhan (P.W.-9), Dhirendra (P.W.-8), I.O., O.P. Kujur (P.W.12) and Lalchand (P.W.-1), we are of the view that the these witnesses are fully reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned trial Court on this evidence does not appear to be erroneous in any respect.

¶34

It is a case, in which, the role of the appellant was not that of a culprit from the very beginning. The appellant was asked by Chandrabhan (P.W.-9) to participate and he helped in the performance of rituals to be performed for Dhirendra Kumar (P.W.8), in which he participated. The incident occurred all of a sudden when the appellant inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased with an axe. The evidence of Chandrabhan (P.W.-9) shows presence of motive of the appellant who was piqued and harassed

¶35

Page 8 of 8

¶36

due to the practice of exorcism by the deceased – Chhattar Sai and also the statement that was made by the appellant at the time he has inflicted injuries has relevance as he said that “today I have got the opportunity” that means something must have been going on, on the mind of the appellant prior to the occurrence of this incident and finding the opportunity, he executed his plan and killed the deceased. The number of injuries that were found on the neck and head of the deceased, which have been reported vide (Ex.P.-11) by Dr. A.K. Sharma (P.W.-4) is itself suggestive that the injuries were inflicted with intention to cause death only. There is no evidence present to suggest that there had been any sudden provocation given to the appellant by the deceased or any other person or that there had been any sudden fight between the appellant with the deceased or any other person. Therefore, this case is neither under exception (1) or exception (4) of Section 300 and it is not a case to be under exception 2, 3 and 5 of Section 300. Therefore, it is a clear case of intentional murder of the deceased.

¶37

On the basis of the discussion made herein above and conclusions drawn, we are of the view that the present appeal is without any merits, which is hereby dismissed accordingly.

¶38

Sd/Sd/(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Judge

¶39

Balram

Shivprasad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivprasad 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

National Investigation Agency Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Horilal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Vastrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh, Vs Sanjay Kumar Chauhan

Arjun Das Manikpuri Vs State of C.G.

Ashok Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh