Murder convictions rested on eyewitness accounts of the deceased's family members. The court accepted their testimony despite discrepancies concerning timing and weapons, dismissed both appeals, and left the convictions and life sentences undisturbed.
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
AFR
Judgment reserved on 29.08.2022 Judgment pronounced on 02.11.2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1419/2015
Halkuram @ Alku S/o Paklu, Caste Muriya, Aged about 46 years, R/o Village Mophalnar, Patelpara, P.S. Gidam, District – Dantewada (C.G.) Civil & Revenue District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
…… Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through :- P.S. Gidam, District – Dantewada (C.G.) Civil & Revenue District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
……. Respondent
And
Criminal Appeal No.81/2018
Boddaram son of Lachchhu, aged about 45 years, resident of Village Mofalnar, Patelpara, Police Station Geedam, District – South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
…… Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Incharge, Police Chowki-Lodam, Police Station - Geedam District – South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
……. Respondent
For Appellant in Cr.A No. 1419/2015: Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Appellant in Cr.A No. 81/2018 : Mr. Mohd. Azad Siddiqui Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Kapil Maini, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ
C A V Judgment
Sachin Singh Rajput, J.
2
conviction & order of sentence dated 07.08.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, South Bastar District – Dantewada in Sessions Trial No. 96/2006 (C.G.) and Criminal Appeal No. 81/2018 has been filed assailing the legality, validity, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 21.11.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, South Bastar District – Dantewada (C.G.). By the impugned judgments, the appellants were held guilty for causing homicidal death amounting to murder of deceased Raju Ram Bhaskar in furtherence of common intention with other accused persons. Appellant-Halkuram was convicted for offence punishable under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {for short ‘IPC’} and sentenced for life imprisonment. Appellant Boddaram was convicted for offence under section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, 2 months additional rigorous was imposed. Since both the appeals are arising out of same sessions trial, it is being decided by this common judgment.
Facts of the case
3
absconder. Rest of the accused faced the trial and were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month vide judgment dated 31.03.2009 in Sessions Trial No.96/2006 by the Sessions Judge, South Bastar Dantewada, (C.G.). These accused persons preferred an appeal against their conviction before this Court and vide Judgment dated 11.02.2014 their appeals bearing Cr.A. No. 321/2009 Dukaru Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Cr.A. No. 322/2009 Raghu Bhaskar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Cr.A. No. 323/2009 Bomda Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh came to be dismissed and their conviction was affirmed.
4
1419/2015) also caused injury to Phulmati (PW-5) sister of complainant Guddiram Bhaksr (PW-3) when she tried to intervene.
5
(Appellant in Cr.A No. 81/2018) absconded and were declared absconder. They were later apprehended and convicted by the impugned judgments.
Submissions of the appellants and respondent/state
6
have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. They further argued that the seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution hence, the credibility of prosecution witnesses looses significance. There are major contradiction and omission in the statements of eyewitnesses with regard to time of incident and the weapons used by the appellants. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted from all charges giving benefit of doubt to them.
Analysis and conclusion
7
(iii) Deep incised wound below occipital bone 3” x 1”.
In the internal examination skull bone was found fractured and hematoma present in brain and it was congested. In the opinion of this witness the cause of death was excessive external and internal hemorrhage and cardio-respiratory shock due to injuries nos.1,2,3. The nature of death was homicidal. Looking to the statement of this witness this court has no hesitation to hold that the death of the deceased Rajuram Bhaskar was homicidal in nature.
“ Related and Interested Witness :
8
quoted above, it becomes the best evidence. Such testimony being natural, additing to the degree of probability, the Court has to make reliance upon it in proving a fact. The aforesaid position of law has been well laid down in Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 591 :
“32. Coming back to the appreciation of the evidence at hand, at the outset, our attention is drawn to the fact that the witnesses were interrelated, and this Court should be cautious in accepting their statements. It would be beneficial to recapitulate the law concerning the appreciation of evidence of related witness. In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145: AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1953 Cri LJ 1465], Vivian Bose, J. for the Bench observed the law as under : (AIR p.366, para 26)
9
that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.”
“6. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.”
“38. … it is clear that a close relative cannot be characterised as an “interested” witness. He is a “natural” witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinised carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the “sole” testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one.”
10
result, if allowed to be weighed in the same scales with those who do not have any interest in the result, would be to open the doors of the court for perverted truth. This sound rule which remains the bulwark of this system, and which determines the value of evidence derived from such sources, needs to be cautiously and carefully observed and enforced. There is no dispute about the fact that the interest of the witness must affect his testimony is a universal truth. Moreover, under the influence of bias, a man may not be in a position to judge correctly, even if they earnestly desire to do so. Similarly, he may not be in a position to provide evidence in an impartial manner, when it involves his interest. Under such influences, man will, even though not consciously, suppress some facts, soften or modify others, and provide favourable colour. These are most controlling considerations in respect to the credibility of human testimony, and should never be overlooked in applying the rules of evidence and determining its weight in the scale of truth under the facts and circumstances of each case.”
11
ther and took him outside from home. They assaulted his father. Bodda, Raghu and Bomda assaulted his father by bow & arrow, Alkuram with tangiya , Dukaru with iron rod and sword. His father suffered injuries on his head, stomach and shoulder. After assaulting they went from his house. In the morning at about 6 AM all accused came back with arms and again assaulted his father and continued assaulting for one hour. His younger sister Fulmati (PW-5) was also assaulted by Halkuram with knife on her hand. He further deposed that the accused assaulted his father on Sunday at 11 PM and on Monday morning at about 6-7 AM. He proved merg intimation Ex-P/8 and First Information Report Ex-P/9. This witness was subjected to lengthy cross examination. In cross examination he stated that did not report to police with regard to demand of Rs. One Lakh else his father would be murdered. He deposed that he has informed the police that accused came in 11 in the night. However he could not explained why it is not mentioned in his statement Ex-D/ 1. He further deposed that he has informed that Halkuram was holding tangiya and cannot explain if it is not mentioned in Ex-P/8 and Ex-P/9. He himself deposed that Halkuram was holding bow & arrow, tangiya and knife. He further deposed that he informed during lodging report that Bomda (Convicted Accused) was holding bow & arrow and he cannot give any reason if it is not mentioned in ExP/8 and Ex-P/9. He further deposed that he informed during lodging report that Raghu (Convicted Accused) was holding knife and he cannot give any reason if it is not mentioned in Ex-P/8 and Ex-P/9. He denied that accused persons did not assault his father before him. He further denied that on Sunday & Monday he was not present in Mopalnar. There are some contradictions or omission in the testimony of this witness. However in considered opinion of this court these contradiction or omission is not sufficient or glaring to discard the credible testimony of this witness as he stood firm during the course of his examination with regard to complicity of the appellant in the crime.
12
shouted. They entered the house and assaulted his husband. Bodda was holding sword and bow & arrow, Halku was holding tangiya and sword, Bomda was holding tangiya and bow & arrow, Dukaru was holding bow & arrow and tangiya, Raghu was holding tangiya and bow & arrow. Accused persons assaulted his husband and went away. In the morning i.e. on Monday at 6-7 AM all five accused came back to house and again assaulted his husband because of which he died. In the cross examination she denied that she has not seen the accused persons assaulting her husband. She also denied that 40-50 people came to her house and assaulted her husband. She stated that she has informed to police that Bodda was holding sword, Bomda was holding bow & arrow, Dukaru was holding bow & arrow, Raghu was holding tangiya, Halku was holding sword and she cannot give any reason if it is not mentioned in her statement Ex-D/2. This witness also stood firm with regard to involvement of the appellant in the crime. Likewise Fulmati (PW-5) also corroborated the testimony of Guddiram Bhaskar (PW-3). She deposed that Boddaram was holding sword and tangiya, Dukaru was holding sword and tangiya, Halkuram was holding sword and bow & arrow, Raghu was holding bow & arrow and sword, Bomda was holding tangiya. Halkuram was assaulting her father with sword and when she intervened she sustained sword injury on her left hand. Next morning all accused came back armed with weapons and again assaulted her father because of which he died. In her cross examination she stated that she has informed to police that Bodda was holding sword, Dukaru was holding sword, Halku was holding bow & arrow and sword, Raghu was holding sword, and she cannot give any reason if it is not mentioned in her statement Ex-D/3. She denied that the accused persons did not assault her father. Apart from some minor discrepancy this witness remained firm in her statement.
13
villagers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishna Master and others (2010) 12 SCC 324 observed in paragraph 15 to 17 as under:-
“15. Before appreciating evidence of the witnesses examined in the case, it would be instructive to refer to the criteria for appreciation of oral evidence. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
16. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless the reasons are weighty and formidable, it would not be proper for the appellate court to reject the evidence on the ground of variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Small/Trivial omissions would not justify a finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a short-coming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it.
14
17. In the deposition of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies, howsoever, honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence and threat to the life. It is not unoften that improvements in earlier version are made at the trial in order to give a boost to the prosecution case, albeit foolishly. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to separate falsehood from the truth. In sifting the evidence, the court has to attempt to separate the chaff from the grains in every case and this attempt cannot be abandoned on the ground that the case is baffling unless the evidence is really so confusing or conflicting that the process cannot reasonably be carried out. In the light of these principles, this Court will have to determine whether the evidence of eyewitnesses examined in this case proves the prosecution case.
15
to get off scot free. The defense witnesses examine by appellants do not inspire confidence in light of the credible eyewitnesses who denied that 40-50 people came and assaulted the deceased and Guddiram (PW-3) was not present in the spot. It is pertinent to mention here that the appeals of other co accused person namely Dukaru Ram, Raghu Bhaskar and Bomda Ram have been dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 11/02/2014 in Cr.A. No. 321/2009, in Cr.A. No. 322/2009, in Cr.A. No. 323/2009 respectively on same set of evidence.
Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Could the deceased's close relatives' eyewitness testimony sustain the murder convictions?
Did discrepancies about the time of assault and weapons used render the eyewitness testimony unreliable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dukaru Ram Vs. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶87
Cr.A. No. 321/2009 Dukaru Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Raghu Bhaskar Vs. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶87
Cr.A. No. 322/2009 Raghu Bhaskar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Bomda Ram Vs. State of ChhattisgarhReferred¶87
Cr.A. No. 323/2009 Bomda Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.Applied¶52
Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 150 · Who else cites this
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishna Master and othersApplied¶80
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishna Master and others (2010) 12 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Halkuram @ Alku
Boddaram
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Sachin Singh Rajput
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
