Dismissed

Bholaram Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Aug 2023CRA/6/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against conviction and life sentence for murder. High Court upheld trial court's conviction finding eyewitnesses corroborated murder with intent after consumption of liquor and rejection of self-defence plea.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC affirmed.

Bholaram Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRA No. 6 of 2020

¶4

Bholaram Patel S/o Shri Ramu Patel Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Raghaw Chowk Babadera Lachchhanpur Police Station - Janjgir District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Janjgir - Champa, District - Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Appellant	: Mr. Dheerendra Pandey,
For Respondent	: Mr. Arjit Tiwari, PL

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S Agrawal

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

¶14

03/08/2023

¶15

Heard.

¶16

This criminal appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20/08/2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 21/2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment to further undergo SI for 10 days.

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27/01/2019 after receiving the

¶18

information from the Mission Hospital, Champa that Santram (henceforth 'the Deceased') has died, the police officials reached to the Hospital, where Dehati Merg (Ex.P-1) was registered by the Golu Patel (PW-1). It has been stated that on 27/01/2019 at about 08:00 PM, Bholaram- the accused/appellant started quarreling on the issue that no space was left to approach his house by the Deceased and abused him. When the Deceased went out of his house to have dialogue with him, at that time the accused/appellant caused 2-3 fatal blows on the Deceased. The persons who were present nearby i.e. Gopal Patel, Ramesh Patel, Motilal Patel, Tiharin Bai and Dhnai Bai etc., rushed to the spot, tried to interfere and caught hold the accused/appellant, but when the Deceased fell down on the ground and the attention of the family members got diverted towards him, the accused/appellant, taking advantage of that moment, fled away from the spot. The Deceased was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Subsequently, the postmortem (Ex.P-13) was conducted by Dr. Sarita Nagrachi (PW9) who opined that the death was homicidal in nature because of injuries inflicted on the Deceased.

¶19

During the course of investigation, the accused/appellant was arrested on 28/01/2019 and on his memorandum, clothes were recovered. Subsequently, the knife which was used to inflict injuries was also recovered. The police, after recording the statements of the witnesses, seizure of blood stained soil along with other articles and completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet under Section 302 of the IPC before the Sessions Court. During the course of trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

¶20

In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses in its support. One defence witness i.e. Ramu Patel

¶21

(DW1) was examined. The statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded innocence and false implication in the matter. The learned Sessions Judge, after completion of trial and upon appreciation of evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused/appellant would submit that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. The statements of these witnesses would show that the Deceased and his family members had completely blocked the access road of the appellant's house, which resulted into a dispute and in a sudden provocation, the incident took place. He would further submit that there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant to commit the murder of the Deceased as there was a property dispute which resulted into such incident.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions and after going through the statement of eyewitnesses submits that all the eyewitnesses have categorically deposed that the accused/appellant, with an intention and predetermined mind, went into his house and came up with a knife, and committed the murder of the Deceased, therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant. He would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is well merited and no interference is required.

¶24

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶25

The incident took place on 27/01/2019. The postmortem report is marked as Ex.P-13. Dr. Sarita Nagrachi (PW9) who has conducted the postmortem of the body of the Deceased found the following injuries on the person of the

¶26

Deceased:-

¶27

"(i). Right Arm Injuries Internal side, length- 4 inches, width - 2 inches, depth- 1 inch, oval shaped, irregular margin. (ii). 2nd injury in the left side of chest, length- 2 ½ inches, width- 1 inch, depth- 3 inches, oval shaped, 1 end pointed & 1 end round.

¶28

She has opined that the cause of death was Cardiorespiratory failure because of injuries on heart and lungs. The death was homicidal in nature. Thus, on perusal of evidence of doctor, it is apparent that the prosecution is able to prove that the death was homicidal in nature.

¶29

In order to find out the intention of the accused/appellant, the statements of witnesses i.e. Golu Patel (PW1), Motilal Patel (PW2), Gopal Patel (PW3), Tiharin Bai (PW5) and Ramesh Kumar Patel (PW6) who are said to be the eye-witnesses to the incident, are relevant.

¶30

In his statement, Golu Patel (PW1) has deposed that on 27/01/2019 at about 08:00 PM, the accused/appellant, after consumption of liquor, was abusing to his father and while doing so, he was shouting that Santram (the Deceased) has blocked his part of land and has not left the way to move. At this juncture, his father (the Deceased) came out from the house and asked the accused/appellant not to abuse, on which the accused/appellant assaulted the Deceased by a knife for two-three times. To save the Deceased, he along with Gopal, Ramesh Patel, Motilal Patel, Tiharin Bai and Dhanai Bai rushed to the spot, but when the Deceased got fallen down on the ground, the accused/appellant, taking advantage of this, fled away from the spot. He further deposed that the Deceased was, thereafter, taken to the Mission Hospital, where he was declared dead. In the crossexamination of this witness, certain suggestions were given that because of family dispute the incident happened, but the same was denied by him.

¶31

Similar type of statement has been advanced by Motilal Patel (PW2). He deposed that while he was taking the meal in his house, the accused/appellant came up and started to abuse by the names of mother, sister and brother of the Deceased. On this, he along with the Deceased went there to make him understand, but at that moment the accused/appellant went inside his house, came up with a knife and thereafter assaulted the Deceased on his abdomen. Cross-examination of this witness has remained unrebutted, particularly on the fact that initially when the deceased along with him went to have conversation with the accused/appellant who was unarmed at that time, went inside his house, came up with a knife again, and thereafter, assaulted the Deceased. Thus, sudden provocation theory of self-defence with respect to the dispute about property, cannot be inferred

¶32

Likewise, Motilal Patel (PW3) has also made similar kind of statement. According to him, on the date of incident, when his father Santram (the Deceased) went for conversation with the accused/appellant, he assaulted him by a knife. He along with other family members caught hold the accused/appellant, but when their attention got diverted towards the deceased who got fallen down on the ground, the accused/appellant fled away from the spot. During cross-examination, a suggestion was extended to this witness that because of family enmity, false allegation has been made against the accused/appellant, but the same has been denied by this witness.

¶33

Another eye-witness Tiharin Bai (PW5) in her statement has deposed that on the date of incident, the accused/appellant, after consumption of liquor, was abusing and when the Deceased went to convince him not to abuse, the accused/appellant assaulted him by a knife.

¶34

Rakesh Kumar Patel (PW6) has also deposed in similar fashion. According to him, on the date of incident at about 07:30 - 08:00 pm, the accused/appellant after consumption of liquor, was abusing. At that time, his uncle Santram (the Deceased) went there to convince him not to abuse, but the accused/appellant assaulted the Deceased by a knife. The statement of this witness is not overlapped or contradictory at any point to the statements of other witnesses who have categorically deposed in similar fashion. Even, the cross-examination of these witnesses do not lead the prosecution story to draw any kind of adverse inference.

¶35

Further, the argument advanced by the counsel for the accused/appellant that there was no intention of the accused/appellant to commit murder, cannot be accepted after going through the evidence of the eye-witnesses because the accused/appellant who is a well grown man, knowing the gravity of assault with a weapon like knife, used the knife and inflicted 2-3 blows on the Deceased. Thus, the argument has no relevance.

¶36

Memorandum and seizure witness Gendram Kurre (PW4) before whom, the clothes and knife was recovered from the accused/appellant, has not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶37

With respect to the seizure of weapon, it is evident that when the incident was narrated and corroborated by the above eye-witnesses in a particular manner, the presumption that the seizure of weapon i.e. knife even was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the independent witness, except by the Investigating Officer, cannot be given preference against the ocular evidence. The manner in which the offence was committed would show that the accused/appellant has assaulted the Deceased by way of knife and while doing so, he, first, went inside his house and came up with a knife, and thereafter, assault was made which clearly shows the motive and

¶38

preparation of assault. Moreover, the statements of eye-witnesses corroborate with each other which shows the happening of the incident. Apart from above, the death was homicidal in nature which was confirmed by the Dr. Sarita Nagrachi (PW9).

¶39

Taking into consideration the totality of case, we are of the view that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and in our considered opinion, no interference is called for.

¶40

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(Goutam Bhaduri) (Sanjay S Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶44

rahul

Bholaram Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bholaram Patel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kothari Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Comercial Tax

M/S Kothari Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Commerical Tax

Roshan Kumar Jha Vs Smt. Sadhna Jha

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sun and Sun Inframetric Pvt. Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sun and Sun Inframetric Pvt. Ltd.

Durga Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh