Dismissed

Mahendra Kurre @ Ravindra @ Lallu Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Nov 2023CRA/304/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the appeal by an accused convicted of murder. The court upheld the conviction relying on an unrebutted eye witness statement and a weapon recovered at the accused instance, holding minor discrepancies regarding the exact recovery location immaterial to his culpability.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge were upheld.

Mahendra Kurre @ Ravindra @ Lallu Kurre Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRA No. 304 of 2021

¶4

Mahendra Kurre @ Ravindra @ Lallu Kurre S/o Badri Prasad Kurre Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village- Murkunda, P.S.- Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.Pachpedi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. –---Respondent

¶7

For appellant– Shri Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. For State/respondent – Shri Kashif Shakeel, Dy.A.G.

¶8

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri & Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgement on board

¶9

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J. 23/11/2023

¶10

Heard.

¶11

This appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/02/2021 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.142/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine amount of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional RI for six months.

¶12

As per the prosecution case, on 12/06/2019 at about 8 pm, Raju Tandan, son of the deceased made a report that the accused/appellant has killed his father namely Tribuvan Tandan on the suspicion that deceased had illicit relation with the wife of the accused/appellant. On the basis of such report, the investigation was carried out and subsequently the dead body was subjected to postmortem wherein it was stated that death was homicidal in nature. After the accused/appellant was arrested, on the basis of memorandum, the weapon axe, which was used to commit the crime, was recovered from the canal/near the canal which was alleged

¶13

¶14

to be buried in the ground. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Eye witness Prashant Tandan (PW-5) stated to have seen the incident and the weapon was sent for query wherein it was stated that injury could have been caused by the said weapon. Then on FSL report presence of human blood was found. The charge sheet was filed. During the course of trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The learned Sessions Judge after evaluating the entire facts and evidence, convicted the accused/appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the prosecution proceeded on the statement of Prashant Tandan (PW-5), the alleged eye witness but facts would show that he was a planted witness. He would submit that the statement of the eye witness was recorded after 20-21 days and though statements of other witnesses were in hand writing, statement of the material witness was in written form, this creates a doubt about planting of the witness. He would further submit that memorandum witness Raju Tandan (PW-3) is son of the deceased, therefore he also tried to create evidence against the accused/appellant whereas the independent witness Sammat Khunte (PW-4) has not supported the case of the prosecution. In respect of the seizure of the alleged weapon, the axe, learned counsel would submit that there are divergence of statement, as according to witness Raju Tandan (PW-3) it was thrown into the water of the canal whereas S.F. Kerketta (PW-9) the IO stated that it was recovered from inside after excavating the ground wherein it was buried. He would submit that presence of Prashant Tandan (PW-5) is also doubtful as he was not resident of the same village as he was a passerby. This evidence therefore cumulatively would lead to show that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of the false evidence,

¶16

¶17

therefore he deserves an acquittal. He placed his reliance in AIR 2022 SC 5273 in between Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh to submit that it is though alleged that the appellant/accused admitted the guilt before the villagers but the conviction on the basis of the same extra judicial confession would be a weak type of evidence and when there is a divergence of statement, the conviction cannot proceed and he would submit that statement given under police custody would not be admissible in evidence.

¶18

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the incident happened on 12/06/2019 at about 8 pm and within two hours on the same day, the merg intimation was lodged by Ex.P-2 wherein entire story has been narrated which reflects also that two days prior to the incident a quarrel took place in between them for the reason that the accused used to doubt that father of the said lodger Raju Tandan has an illicit relation with the wife of the accused. He further submits that this evidence and statement of Prashant Tandan (PW-5) who is an eye witness has narrated the incident and no inference can be drawn that he is a planted witness as nothing has been eliminated in the cross-examination. He would further submit that the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused which was containing human blood has not been properly explained by the appellant. Consequently, judgement of conviction is well merited, which do not call for any interference. He further submits that even the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the eye witness and he placed his reliance in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1424 in between State Vs.

¶19

Laly Alias Manikandan.

¶20

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the evidence and the documents which are exhibited.

¶21

The incident is said to have happened according to the merg

¶22

¶23

intimation (Ex.P-2) on 12/06/2019 at 8 pm. The son of the deceased, Raju Tandan who is PW-3 reported the same within two hours wherein reading of it would show that two days prior to the incident, a quarrel took place in between the deceased and the accused in the backdrop of the fact that the accused alleged that the deceased had an illicit relation with his wife. Thereafter, the assault was made and accused himself was shouting that he has killed father of Raju Tandan i.e. Tribuvan Tandan and Ram Charan had also heard it. Therefore, the circumstances would show that immediately within two hours of the incident, it was reported to the police wherein certain narrations were made. The state of mind of the lodger at the relevant time when near and dear was assaulted and killed, normally the human behavior would be that he would divulge the facts which is known to him. Therefore, prima facie, by Ex.P-2 the merg intimation the creation of doubt looms large over the accused subject to the evidence on record.

¶24

When the dead body of the deceased was found at the place near a pond, the naksha panchayatnama was drawn by Ex.P-6 which would show that the dead body was found near the pond which is further corroborated by map Ex.P-4. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. Sheela Saha (PW-8) and according to her, she found the following injuries:-

¶25

1.- Incised wound size 2 X 1 X2 Inch on the back of the neck.

¶26

2.- Two abrasions size 0.5 X 0.5 Inch on the back of the neck.

¶27

3.- Incised wound size 4 X 1 X2 Inch on left shoulder.

¶28

Lacerated wound size 4 X 4 Inch which was present from the forehead of the left eye to the temporal region which was present on the left side of the head.

¶29

5.- In the said injury number 04, there was a fracture in the temporal bone and brain material was injured.

¶30

¶31

The death was homicidal in nature due to injury to brain and head and due to hit by sharp and hard object. The postmortem report is marked as Ex.P-14. The eye witness to the incident is Prashant Tandan (PW-5). Lot of submission has been made by the accused/appellant that he is a planted witness as his statement was recorded after 20-21 days after the incident. The statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Prashant Tandan (PW-5) is also on record. The statement of IO, S.F. Kerketta (PW-9), the examination and cross-examination would show that no such suggestion was ever given to him that statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.D-3 was recorded after a considerable period. We went through the statement of Prashant Tandan (PW-5). In his deposition, he stated that on 11/06/2019 he went to village Bhurkunda to attend a marriage. He was coming back on 12/06/2019, on the date of incident at about 8 pm, he was passing through a lane wherein near the pond, he saw that Lallu @ Mahendra Kurre, the accused was standing with an axe near the pond and at a distance of 10-15 steps, Tribuvan Tandan was present there at the bank of pond. Subsequently, Tribuvan Tandan when he started walking back, the accused came and assaulted him on back & neck 2-3 times and by such assault, the deceased fell down to the ground. Thereafter, he dragged him and assaulted on his head. This nature of assault is proved by postmortem report Ex.P-14 wherein injuries were found on the back, neck and the head. Thereafter, the accused/appellant shouted on the spot that he has killed Tribuvan Tandan and if anybody gives an evidence, he would commit murder of him.

¶32

In the cross-examination a suggestion was given that Tribuvan Tandan is related to him which was denied instead the cross-examination would show that the issue of illicit relation of the wife of the accused and

¶33

¶34

the deceased was suggested and the dispute was also suggested which proves the motive. He stated that after that incident, he went back to his village Vidyadih and his statement was recorded after 20-22 days. Though the suggestion further was given that being dark in the night, he could not see the incident but it was all denied. Certain omissions were also suggested. When the statement given in the court is compared with the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., no material contradiction or omission comes to our notice and primarily the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statement given in the court appears to have evidentiary value. This statement of the eye witness remains unrebutted. Further statement of Raju Tandan (PW-3) son of the deceased who is also witness to the memorandum was perused.

¶35

The memorandum is Ex.P-8. The statement in that would show that he deposed that after the incident he has buried the axe in the canal. Though Raju Tandan (PW-3) has stated that the accused stated that he has thrown the axe into the water of the canal and in the memorandum statement, he stated that he has buried it into the canal do not materially affect inasmuch as the seizure Ex.P-9 whereby the axe and the shirt were recovered near a koha tree near binda nala (canal) would show that the recovery was made from a particular identified area disclosed by the accused. The fact that even if the submission of the appellant is considered that the axe was thrown into the canal which was filled with water or the seizure document Ex.P-9 which shows that it was buried into the ground, the fact remains that the alleged weapon was not in the visibility of the general public, therefore, even if it was under the water or buried in the ground and was recovered from a particular place such minor issues will not be to any help of the accused.

¶36

After the shirt and the axe were recovered at the instance of the

¶37

¶38

accused, the same were sent for FSL. FSL report is filed as Ex.P-21. FSL report would show that the axe which was recovered was containing the human blood as also the shirt which was recovered at the instance of the accused from nearby canal was having human blood. The accused was arrested by Ex.P-22 on 13/06/2019 at about 8. Perusal of it would show that he was not having any injury and the recovery of the axe was in the custody of the police on 13/06/2019 itself. The said seized weapon when was sent for query by Dr. Sheela Saha (PW-8) vide Ex.P-15, query report stated that the nature of injury could have been caused by such axe.

¶39

Perusal of the accused statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C would show that no explanation has been given about the presence of human blood on the shirt and the axe by the accused. Therefore, when the weapon which was recovered at the instance of the accused, from a concealed place either under the water or ground, the particular and the identity of the spot was only known to the accused and the statement of the PW-5 which remained unrebutted who is an eye witness cumulatively goes to show that the accused was the author of the crime. Considering all the facts, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/02/2021 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.142/2019.

¶40

13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/- Sd/-

¶42

(Goutam Bhaduri) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge

¶43

gouri

Mahendra Kurre @ Ravindra @ Lallu Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kurre @ Ravindra @ Lallu Kurre 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

Rinki Choudhary Vs Vikram Choudhary

M/S Narendra Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Rewaram Verma Vs Smt. Premkumari Verma

Dileep Kumar @ Jhirga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jairam Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishun Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh