Dismissed

Suresh Kumar Kureti v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jun 2024CRA/272/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the appellant for the murder of his elder brother. The court upheld the Trial Court's finding based on direct witness testimony, post-mortem reports confirming homicidal injuries, and forensic evidence linking blood to the appellant and the weapon.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; impugned judgment and order convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment are affirmed.

Suresh Kumar Kureti Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2018

¶6

(Arising out of Judgment & Order dated 17.1.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod in Sessions Case No.60 of 2017)

¶7

Suresh Kumar Kureti, S/o Ramsingh Kureti, aged about 28 years, R/o Village Hitapathar, Police Station Mangchuwa, District Balod (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, through: Station House Officer, Police Station Mangchuwa, District Balod (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant	:-	Mr. N.K. Malaviya, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	:-	Mr. Sharad Mishra,
		Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Division Bench

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal

¶15

Judgment on Board [18.06.2024]

¶16

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶17

1. Assail in the present criminal appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, CrPC) is to the judgment & order dated 17.1.2018 passed by learned First Additional Sessions

¶18

Judge, Balod (Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.60 of

¶19

-2-

¶20

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶21

2017, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) for committing murder of his elder brother, Chinturam Kureti, and sentenced thereunder to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default whereof, to suffer additional 03 months’ Rigorous Imprisonment.

¶22

2. Brief factual aspect of the prosecution case is that on 17.4.2017 at about 6:30am in the morning, an altercation took place between the appellant and his elder brother, deceased Chinturam, on the pretext of unnecessary yelling and abusing by Chinturam early in the morning, which ultimately turned into an violent fight between them where the appellant overpowered Chinturam and tied up both of his hands with rope and then he took him and tied him to an electric pole situated near Kalamanch of their village Hitapathar by using different kind of ropes, bicycle tube and cloth. The appellant then took an iron axe ( tangiya ) by which he killed Chinturam mercilessly by first cutting both of his hands and then his head from the rest of his body.

¶23

-3-

¶24

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶25

3. On the report of PW-1 Anupa Bai, wife of deceased Chinturam, Dehati Merg (Exhibit P-1) and Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P-2) were recorded at Police Station Manghchuwa. Subsequently, Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-10) and FIR (Exhibit P-9) vide Crime No.11/2017 were registered against the appellant for the said offence and the investigation was started by the Investigation Officer, PW-10 H.L. Jain. During investigation, in presence of the witnesses, sketch map of the place of incident was prepared vide Exhibit P-3, Inquest was conducted vide Exhibit P-17 and the dead-body of deceased Chinturam was subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by PW-9 Dr. B.S. Keram vide Exhibit P-13 in which cause of his death was opined to be shock due to excessive hemorrhage from cut wounds of large blood vessels resulting from incised wounds of his whole neck and both hands (cut wounds of neck and hands) and the nature of his death was homicidal. Vide Exhibit P-12, blood sample of deceased Chinturam was seized in a vial and his clothes and different types of ropes, a tube of bicycle tyre, etc., were also seized. Vide Exhibit P-20, blood

¶26

-4-

¶27

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶28

mixed earth and control earth were seized from the place of incident. Statements of the concerned witnesses were recorded under Section 161/164 of CrPC. Vide Exhibit P-4, Spot Map was prepared by the Patwari.

¶29

4. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Exhibit P-18, pursuant to which an iron axe fixed with a wooden handle, stained with blood like spots, was seized vide Exhibit P-19 and vide Exhibit P-21, his shirt worn by him at the time of incident, also stained with blood like spots, was seized. Arrest of the appellant was made vide Exhibit P-22. Vide query report (Exhibit P-14), PW-9 Dr. B.S. Keram opined that the seized axe can cause injuries which have resulted in death of deceased Chinturam and further advised for the forensic examination of the blood like spots found on the seized axe. Vide FSL report (Exhibit P-26), after chemical examination of the seized articles, human blood was found on the shirt (B) of deceased Chinturam and rope (C) found tied up on his dead-body, ropes (H) & (I) seized after the post-mortem of deceased, blood mixed earth (J) seized from the spot

¶30

-5-

¶31

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶32

as well as on the shirt (L) seized from the appellant. In other seized articles, including the axe (M) which was seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellant, only blood was found, except the control earth (K) seized from the spot on which no blood/human blood was found.

¶33

5. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the concerned Magistrate Court from where the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and subsequently it was put to trial before the Trial Court where charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed and read out/explained to the appellant who abjured his guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial.

¶34

6. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-10 and exhibited 27 documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-27. Photographs of deceased Chinturam has been brought on record vide Articles A & B. Statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in

¶35

-6-

¶36

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶37

the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. Though in defence neither any witness has been examined nor has any document been relied on.

¶38

7. After conclusion of trial, the Trial Court, by impugned judgment & order dated 17.1.2018, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came on record, held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his elder brother, Chinturam, and accordingly convicted and sentenced him for Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation, which led to filing of the present appeal by the appellant calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order.

¶39

8. Mr. N.K. Malaviya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the Trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, as PW-2 Yogesh, son of the deceased, PW-3 Ku. Nisha, daughter of the appellant and PW-6 Smt. Punita Bai have not fully supported the case of the prosecution

¶40

-7-

¶41

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶42

and the appellant as such deserves to be acquitted of the said offence on the basis of benefit of doubt and appeal be allowed accordingly.

¶43

9. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment & order and submit that it is a case of brutal murder by the appellant of his own elder brother, Chinturam, who was tied to an electric pole by the appellant and killed mercilessly by cutting his head and hands from the rest of his body, which the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of evidence available on record. The appellant therefore is not entitled to acquittal even on the basis of benefit of doubt and his appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

10. We have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶45

11. The first and foremost question, as to whether the death of deceased Chinturam was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the Trial Court in affirmative

¶46

-8-

¶47

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶48

relying on the statement of PW-9 Dr. B.S. Keram who has conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Chinturam and also proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-13) in which cause of his death has been opined to be shock due to excessive hemorrhage from cut wounds of large blood vessels resulting from incised wounds of his whole neck and both hands (cut wounds of neck and hands) and the nature of his death has been stated to be homicidal, which, in our considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We, accordingly, affirm the said finding of the Trial Court, holding that the death of deceased Chinturam was homicidal in nature.

¶49

12. The Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the said offence on the basis of direct evidence of PW-2 Yogesh, son of the deceased, PW-3 Ku. Nisha, daughter of the appellant and PW-6 Smt. Punita Bai.

¶50

13. PW-2 Yogesh has clearly stated in his statement that on the date of offence, near Kalamanch, he had seen the appellant cutting the neck and hands of his father

¶51

-9-

¶52

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶53

deceased Chinturam, by axe ( tangiya ). Testimony of this witness has not been controverted in his crossexamination and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution.

¶54

14. PW-3 Ku. Nisha is the daughter of the appellant. She has also supported the case of the prosecution and clearly stated in her statement that his father (appellant) was cutting the hands of the deceased and thereafter she ran away from the spot. She has also supported the prosecution case that the appellant had tied the deceased to an electric pole and had cut both of his hands.

¶55

15. PW-6 Smt. Punita Bai has also supported the case of the prosecution stating that she had seen that the appellant had tied the deceased to an electric pole in front of her house.

¶56

16. The oral testimony of PW-2 Yogesh, PW-3 Ku. Nisha and PW-6 Smt. Punita Bai has also been supported by the medical evidence of PW-9 Dr. B.S. Keram who has conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Chinturam vide Exhibit P-13 with the following

¶57

-10-

¶58

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶59

observation and injuries found on the dead-body of

¶60

the deceased:-

¶61

Observation :-

¶62

Dead-body of a male lying at mortuary table in supine position. Body cold. Rigor Mortis at both lower legs. Head completely separated out from the trunk and present at mortuary table. Both hands are completely cut off (separate out) from rest of body and present at mortuary table. Both hands are tied up by several layer of nylon rope. Both legs at mid part are tied up by rope, bicycle tube and piece of cloth.

¶63

:- Injuries

¶64

(i) Head – both eyes are closed, mouth closed. Head is completely cut off (separate out) from trunk by incised wound from bone of neck. Diameter of bone of neck wound 10cm x 15 cm. Incised wound at right occipital part of head size 3cm x 2cm x skin deep.

¶65

(ii) Right fore hand cut off (separate out) from rest of part of hand, 10cm away right wrist joint - incised wound. Diameter of cut wound is 9cm x 7cm.

¶66

(iii) Left arm cut off (separate out) by incised wound 11cm away from shoulder joint. Diameter of wound 11cm x 10.5 cm.

¶67

(iv) Abrasion marks at left wrist joint 8cm x 4cm.

¶68

(v) Incised wound at right arm 11cm x 3cm x muscle deep vertical in size.

¶69

(vi) Incised wound at right shoulder part 8cm x 3cm skin deep blood clotted. Blood was present all over the wounds.

¶70

All injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by sharp cutting object.

¶71

-11-

¶72

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶73

:- Opinion

¶74

Cause of death is shock due to excessive hemorrhage from cut wounds of large blood vessels (carotid and subclavian arteries) resulting from incised wounds of his whole neck and both hands (cut wounds of neck and hands), homicidal in nature, duration 06 to 12 hours prior to autopsy.

¶75

17. Apart from the oral and medical evidence, in the forensic evidence i.e., FSL report (Exhibit P-26), also human blood was found on the shirt (L) and blood was found on the axe (M), seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant.

¶76

18. Furthermore, PW-9 Dr. B.S. Keram, in his query report (Exhibit P-14) has also opined that the axe ( tangiya ) seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant can cause injuries which have resulted in death of deceased Chinturam.

¶77

19. Thus, in view of the above oral, medical and forensic evidence which have come on record, we have no difficulty to hold that the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is well merited and justified.

¶78

-12-

¶79

(Cr. A. No. 272 of 2018)

¶80

20. Consequently, we dismiss this criminal appeal

¶81

affirming the impugned judgment & order dated 17.1.2018 passed by the Trial Court.

¶82

Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶83

sharad

Suresh Kumar Kureti v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Kureti 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

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gulab Singh Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukhsai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K. Mahesh Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devprasad Deewan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Heera Lal @ Bhagat Vs the State of Chhattisgarh