The Division Bench dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC. The court upheld the lower court's findings regarding the homicidal nature of the death, the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and the recovery of the weapon.
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.
Page 1 of 8
(Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2014)
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 352 of 20 14
Mugul Ram Uraon, Son of Mansay Uraon, aged about 50 years, Resident of Village Patkura, Chitaghutri, Police Station Udaypur, Revenue and Civil District Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Udaypur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy G.A.
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
(13.03.2023)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
(1) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2014, passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No.260/2012 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Mugul Ram Uraon), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
Page 2 of 8
(Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2014)
with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months.
(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 30.06.2012 in the night at about 11:50 PM, at Village Patkura, Chitaghutri within the ambit of Police Station Udaypur, the accused-appellant herein armed with axe (tangiya) entered into the house of Sukhiram (PW-03) and assaulted Lajru Ram (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) while he was sleeping by means of axe on his neck, due to which he suffered grievous injuries and died. Nirmal Ekka (PW-02), who is son of the deceased, informed the matter to the police, pursuant to which, marg intimation (Ex.P/02 & P/02A) and FIR (Ex.P/03 & P/03A) for offence under Section 302 of IPC were registered. Thereafter, inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/06 and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/01. Summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/05. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/10), conducted by Dr. B. M. Kamle (PW-12), it was opined that the cause of death of deceased is hypovolemic shock and internal hemorrhage and nature of death is homicidal. Thereafter, appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/13 and from his possession, blood stained
Page 3 of 8
(Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2014)
axe has been seized vide Ex.P/07. The said seized axe was sent for FSL examination vide Ex.P/14, but no FSL report has been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent court of criminal jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by submitting that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
(3) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents, whereas the appellant-accused has not examined any witness, but exhibited 01 document i.e. statement of Thepa (Ex.D/01) in support of his defence.
(4) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Page 4 of 8
(Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2014)
(5) Mr. Bharat Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the testimony of eye-witnesses, namely, Ku. Mini (PW-01) and Sukhiram (PW-03) are not reliable, as they have not seen the incident clearly. So far as recovery of axe (Tangi) from the possession of the appellant is concerned, no FSL report has been brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate the fact that human blood has been found on the said axe, as such, the recovery of axe is of no help to the prosecution. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and appellant is liable to be acquitted.
(6) Per-contra , Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The eye-witnesses, namely, Ku. Mini (PW-01) and Sukhiram (PW-03) have clearly supported the case of the prosecution and further, the axe used by the appellant as a weapon in commission of murder of deceased has been seized from the possession of the appellant, thus, the conviction and
Page 5 of 8
(Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2014)
sentence passed by the learned trial Court against the appellant is well merited and present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
(7) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
(8) The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/10), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of deceased is hypovolemic shock and internal hemorrhage and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. B.M. Kamle (PW-12), who has conducted the postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased. Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/10) and the statement of Dr. B.M. Kamle (PW-12), we are of the considered opinion that the death of deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirm the said finding.
(9) Now, the next question would be whether the accused-
Page 6 of 8
(Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2014)
appellant herein is the author of the crime in question, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by relying upon the testimonies of eye-witnesses, namely, Ku. Mini (PW01) and Sukhiram (PW-03) and further from the possession of the appellant, blood stained axe (tangi), which was used by him as a weapon in the crime in question has been seized.
(10) It is the case of the prosecution that deceased was the sister’s son of Sukhiram (PW-03) and on the fateful day, deceased had gone to the house of Sukhiram (PW-03). Ku. Mini (PW-01) is daughter of Sukhiram (PW-03). It is further case of the prosecution that on the date of offence deceased after taking meal was sleeping. In the night at about 11:50 PM, the appellant herein armed with axe went to the house of Sukhiram (PW-03) and assaulted deceased by means of said axe on his neck, due to which he suffered grievous injuries, which incident is said to have been witnessed by Ku. Mini (PW-01), daughter of Sukhiram (PW-03) and, thereafter, on her shout, Sukhiram (PW-03) came on the spot. Ku. Mini (PW-01) in her statement before the Court has clearly stated that on the date and time of offence the appellant herein armed with axe came to her house and deceased was sleeping, whereby appellant assaulted deceased twice on his neck, due to which deceased suffered injuries and died and, immediately thereafter, she shouted and
Page 7 of 8
(Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2014)
called her father (i.e. Sukhiram) for help. Ku. Mini (PW-01) was subjected to some extent of cross-examination, but nothing has been extracted to hold that she has not seen the incident or she is falsely implicating the appellant herein. Similarly, Sukhiram (PW-03) has also supported the case of the prosecution by stating that on the date of offence deceased was sleeping in his house and upon hearing the shout of her daughter (i.e. Ku. Mini) he came on the spot and saw appellant running out from his house and deceased lying on the ground and blood was oozing out from his body. Sukhiram (PW-03) has also been subjected to some extent of cross-examination, but nothing has been extracted to hold that he has not seen the appellant running out from his house on the fateful day. As such, from the testimonies of Ku. Mini (PW-01) and Sukhiram (PW-03), it is quite vivid that it is the appellant herein who has assaulted deceased by axe, due to which deceased suffered injuries and died and further the said axe, which is used as a weapon by the appellant in commission of instant crime, has been seized/handed over by the appellant to the police vide Ex.P/07, which is duly proved by seizure witness, namely, Bandhu Ram (PW-08). Further, non-receipt of chemical analysis report qua blood stained axe, which was seized from the possession of the appellant, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as ocular
Page 8 of 8
(Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2014)
evidence/testimonies have been found favour with and cogent to the case of the prosecution. Thus, it is clearly established by the prosecution that it is the present appellant who is author of the crime in question and, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record.
(11) In view of aforesaid discussions, we do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.02.2014 passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, present appeal is liable to and is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge
s@if
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the death of the deceased was of homicidal nature based on the postmortem report.
Whether the accused is the author of the crime based on eyewitness testimony and recovery of the weapon.
Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is legally sustainable or perverse.
Mugul Ram Uraon
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Radhakishan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
