The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by an appellant convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC. The court upheld the conviction, relying on direct eye-witness accounts of the assault, medical evidence confirming homicidal death, forensic evidence matching the seized weapon, and a proven motive of a rejected love affair.
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 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
2024:CGHC:43753-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2019
(Arising out of Judgment dated 30.1.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Special Court, Raipur in Special Sessions Case No.27/2017)
... Appellant(s)
Versus
... Respondent(s)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:- For Appellant Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent-State :- Mr. Ashutosh Shukla. Panel Lawyer.
Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board [11-11-2024]
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) assails the legality, validity and
2 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
correctness of the Judgment dated 30.1.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Special Court under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Raipur, District Raipur in Special Sessions Case No.27/2017, convicting the sole appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing him thereunder to suffer Imprisonment for Life and to pay Fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to suffer additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months, for committing murder of Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre (deceased), after exonerating the appellant of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘Atrocities Act’).
Prosecution case, in brief:-
2. On 3.11.2016 around 7:00 a.m. at Boriyakala under Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur, the appellant with an intention to cause death of Dhaneshwari Dhritlahare inflicted multiple stab injuries on her body with a knife thereby caused her death and that he has committed the said offence
3 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
knowing that she was a member of a Scheduled Caste community. PW-1 Punni Bai, mother of deceased Dhaneshwari, lodged Merg Intimation (Ex. P-2) and FIR (Ex. P-1), both unnumbered, stating inter alia that in the morning of 3.11.2016 she was performing her household chores and her daughter Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre along with Ku. Aarti Dehariya had gone outside of her house to answer the nature’s call. Thereafter, around 7:00 a.m. she was informed by the children of the neighborhood that Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre was being assaulted by the appellant and following the children when she reached the spot, she saw her daughter Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre wriggling with pain lying on the ground and the appellant was sitting on her abdomen and was assaulting her relentlessly with a knife which he had on his hands. When she tried to save her daughter, the appellant assaulted her with his legs on account of which she fell down on the ground and when the appellant saw her son PW-2 Domar Dhritlahre coming to the spot, he fled away from the spot towards village. The seriously injured Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre was taken to her house where she was laid down on the cot and PW-5 Bhupendra Kurre, the medical compounder of
4 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
the village, was called upon, who declared her dead after check-up. PW-1 Punni Bai also informed in her merg intimation that on an earlier occasion also before Dussehra festival, the appellant had outraged the modesty of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre when she was going to school, but the said incident could not be reported due to fear of the appellant being infamous for his goonish behaviour. Thereafter, the present incident occurred where the appellant caused death of her daughter Dhaneshwari Dhritlahare inflicting multiple stab wounds on the vital parts of her body with the use of knife.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid unnumbered Merg Intimation (Ex. P-2) and FIR (Ex. P-1), a formal Merg Intimation (Ex. P-25) and thereafter a formal FIR (Ex. P-26) were registered against the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. Crime Detail Forms (Ex. P-23) was prepared and proved by the Investigating Officer, PW-19 Mukesh Som. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Ex. P-4 and the dead-body of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by PW-18 Dr. M. Nirala vide Ex. P-5 in which cause of her death has been
5 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
opined to be hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple stab injuries and the nature of her death to be homicidal. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex. P-9 pursuant to which, a white colour full-shirt, a blue colour jeans full-pant and a black colour folding button knife, all stained with blood like spots, were recovered vide Ex.10. Arrest of the appellant was made vide Ex. P-11. Vide Ex. P-12, blood found on the place of incident as well as on the wall of the house of the appellant were collected along with its control samples. Clothes of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre were collected after her post-mortem, vide Ex. P-13. Her 8th class certificate and caste certificate were seized vide Ex. P-7. Nazri Naksha (Ex. P-8) was prepared by the Patwari pursuant to the directions issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raipur vide Ex.P-14. Query report (Ex. P-20) was obtained from PW-18 Dr. M. Nirala who opined that the injuries received by deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre can be caused by the seized knife. In the FSL report (Ex. P-29), human blood was found on the shirt (Ex. ‘E’) and full-pant (Ex. ‘F’) of the appellant as well as on the lower pant (Ex. ‘H1’) and T-shirt (Ex. ‘H2’) of the
6 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
deceased and blood was found on the knife (Ex. ‘G’) seized from the appellant and also on the undergarments (Exbts. ‘H3’ & ‘H4’) of the deceased, including the bloodstained cotton and soil (Exbts. ‘A’ & ‘C’) seized from the spot.
4. On completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 of IPC as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act before the concerned Magistrate who took cognizance on the charge-sheet and the case was committed to the Sessions Court from where the matter was transferred to the Special Court under the Atrocities Act for trial and its disposal in accordance with law. The appellant appeared before the Special Court where charges were framed against him for the said offence to which he denied and entreated for trial.
5. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-19 and exhibited 29 documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-29. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in
7 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
the evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, statements of four witnesses have been relied upon, vide Exbts. D-1 to D-4. Article A-1 is the progress report of class-8th of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre, Article A-2 is her caste certificate and Articles A-1 to A-10 are her photographs taken after the incident.
6. On conclusion of the trial, learned Special Court after appreciation of the evidence available on record, found the appellant guilty of committing the offence of murder of Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre and accordingly, while acquitting him of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act finding no merit, convicted him for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him thereunder for Life Imprisonment and to pay Fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation, which led to the filing of the present appeal by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment passed by learned Special Court.
:Submissions of parties
7. Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has not been able to prove the alleged
8 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
offence of murder against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. She would further submit that PW1 Punni Bai, PW-4 Jageshwari Dehariya, PW-6 Siddhi Bai, PW-7 Shanti Bai and PW-9 Gitanjali Dhritlahre, the juvenile witness, are not eye-witnesses and their testimony cannot be held to be reliable being interested witnesses. So also, PW-2 Domar Dhritlahre had reached the spot after the incident had occurred and therefore his testimony also cannot be relied upon being an interested witness. The motive of the offence also cannot be said to be established and even if it is found to be established it is a weak piece of evidence to convict an accused that too for offence of murder. Moreover, the memorandum and seizure proceedings also cannot be held to be duly established as PW-10 Hirdayram and PW-11 Gangaram, the two witnesses of memorandum & seizure proceedings, have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. The human blood found on the clothes of the appellants and the blood found on the knife allegedly seized from him also cannot be held to be an incriminating piece of evidence in absence of corroboration from other evidence available on record. For all these reasons,
9 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Special Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the alleged offence of murder and as such the appellant is entitled to be acquitted, allowing the appeal.
8. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned State Counsel would however submit that the motive of the offence being one sided love affair of the appellant with the deceased stands duly proved from the statement of PW-3 Aarti Dehariya supported by the statement of PW-8 Surekha Khandelwal. Similarly, the homicidal nature of death of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre also stands duly established from the medical evidence of PW-18 Dr. M. Nirala. Furthermore, PW-1 Punni Bai, PW-4 Jageshwari Dehariya, PW-6 Siddhi Bai, PW-7 Shanti Bai and PW-9 Gitanjali Dhritlahre are the witnesses who have seen the incident, which is well supported by the statement of PW-2 Domar Dhritlahre who has seen the appellant running away from the spot after assaulting the deceased and therefore he is a res gestae witness. In addition, as per the FSL report, human blood was found on the clothes of the appellants and blood was found on the knife seized from his possession. The prosecution as
10 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
such has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by learned Special Court by impugned judgment is absolutely justified and the appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
9. We have heard learned Counsels appearing for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.
:Discussion and Analysis
10. From a careful perusal of the record including the impugned judgment as well as the submissions put forth by learned counsels for parties, it is quite clear that the present is a case which based on direct evidence of PW-1 Punni Bai, PW-4 Jageshwari Dehariya, PW-6 Siddhi Bai, PW-7 Shanti Bai and PW-9 Gitanjali Dhritlahre who are the witnesses who have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre, supported by PW-2 Domar Dhritlahre who has seen the appellant running away from the place of incident after assaulting the deceased. Apart from this, learned Special Court to base conviction of the appellant has found proved the
11 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
homicidal death of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre on the basis of medical evidence of PW-18 Dr. M. Nirala and the motive of the offence has also been found proved from the statement of PW-3 Aarti Dehariya and PW-8 Surekha Khandelwal, including the fact that the presence of human blood on the clothes of the appellant as well as blood on the knife seized pursuant to his memorandum statement also has been found proved as per the FSL report.
11. Now, we will consider and decide the aforesaid incriminating circumstances relied upon by learned Special Court to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC for causing death of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre.
Homicidal death
12. The first and foremost question, as to whether the death of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre was homicidal in nature, learned Special Court has answered this question in affirmative relying upon the statement of PW-18 Dr. M. Nirala who has conducted
the post-mortem report of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre vide Ex. P-5 in which cause of her death has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple stab injuries which were inflicted on
12 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
the vital parts of her body, as mentioned in the postmortem report, and the nature of her death was homicidal. In our considered opinion, the said finding of learned Special Court is correct finding of fact based on the medical evidence available on record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, the homicidal death of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre has not been questioned on behalf of the appellant. We, therefore, affirm the finding of the Special Court holding that the death of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre was homicidal.
Motive of the offence
13. So far as motive of the offence is concerned, PW-3 Aarti Dehariya, the schoolmate of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre, in paragraph 3 of her statement has clearly stated that on the way of their school, the appellant used to watch Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre and express that he loves her and wishes to marry her which she always objected to, but the appellant had threatened her to kill on her refusal. The said statement finds support from the statement of PW-8 Surekha Khandelwal, another schoolmate of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre, who has stated in her statement that she together with PW-3 Aarti
13 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
Dehariya and deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre used to go to the school of their village for study and that one or two months before the death of Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre, just one day before Dussehra festival around 10:30 when all three of them were on the way to their school, the appellant came there and stopped Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre and drove them (PW-8 & P-W-3) away by abusing them badly. Nothing could be extracted from their cross-examination so as to disbelieve their statement. As such, the motive of the offence being one sided love affair of the appellant with the deceased stands duly established and which has rightly been found proved by learned Special Court. The finding recorded by learned Special Court in this regard is absolutely justified and it is also neither perverse nor contrary to record.
Testimony of PW-1 Punni Bai, PW-4 Jageshwari Dehariya, PW-6 Siddhi Bai, PW-7 Shanti Bai and PW-9 Gitanjali Dhritlahre as eye-witnesses to the incident
14. In order to form the basis of conviction of the appellant for offence of murder of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre, learned Special Court has accepted the testimony of PW-1 Punni Bai, PW-4 Jageshwari Dehariya, PW-6 Siddhi Bai, PW-7 Shanti
14 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
Bai and PW-9 Gitanjali Dhritlahre as eye-witnesses to the incident.
PW-1 Punni Bai:-
15. PW-1 Punni Bai, mother of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre, in her statement has stated that on the date of offence in the morning, her daughter Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre had gone outside of her house along with Ku. Aarti Dehariya to answer the nature’s call and when she did not come home, a small child, Bitamali, informed her that in the back side of her house at Satnami mohalla , the appellant [who used to be called as ‘Lala’ in the village] was assaulting Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre with knife. She then immediately rushed to the spot where she saw the appellant sitting on the abdomen of Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre and was stabbing her with the knife which he had holding on his hands. When she tried to save her daughter, the appellant kicked her with his legs on account of which she got thrown away and fell down on the ground. At that time, her son PW-2 Domar Dhritlahre who was returning after buying vegetables came to the spot and her daughter Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre was taking hiccups at that moment. Dhaneshwari Dhritlahare was taken to their
15 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
house where PW-5 Bhupendra Kurre, the medical compounder of the village, [whose name is not known to PW-1] declared her dead after check-up.
:PW-4 Jageshwari Dehariya
16. PW-4 Jageshwari Dehariya in her statement has stated that she did not go to the place of incident but she had seen the incident from her house itself and that in front of her house, the house of the appellant is situated. She has clearly stated that the appellant was assaulting Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre with knife and she could not intervene out of fear as the appellant was holding knife on his hands.
PW-6 Siddhi Bai:-
17. PW-6 Siddhi Bai has stated that on the date of offence in the morning at 7 O’clock, she had come out of the gate of her house for sweeping/cleaning and at that time behind the house of Sohaga Bai, the appellant was assaulting Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre with knife on her neck. She has further stated that her house is situated at the distance of just 10 feet away from the place of incident and when she saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with knife, she came back to her house out of fear and that the death of
16 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
Dhaneshwari Dhritlahare has occurred due to the assault made by the appellant with knife.
PW-7 Shanti Bai:-
18. PW-7 Shanti Bai has also stated in her statement that on the date of offence in the morning at 7 O’clock, when she was sweeping/cleaning outside the gate of her house, she had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahare near the wall of the house of Sohaga Bai which is situated in front of her house. She has further stated that she could not ascertain as to from what weapon the appellant was assaulting the deceased and that when she had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased, she had come inside her house out of fear.
:PW-9 Gitanjali Dhritlahre
19. PW-9 Gitanjali Dhritlahre, is the juvenile witness, who was aged about 9 years at the time of her deposition and she was found to be competent by the Special Court to give her deposition. A child witness can be a competent witness provided statement of such witness is reliable, truthful and is corroborated. She deposed that on the date of offence in the morning at 7 O’clock she had gone to her friend Monika Dehariya’s house and she had seen from some
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
17 / 24
distance that the appellant was assaulting Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre on her abdomen and hands. On seeing the appellant assaulting the deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahare, she came back to her house out of fear. In her cross-examination also she has stated that on hearing the noise of the appellant and the deceased, she had come out of her friend Monika’ house and seen the appellant assaulting the deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre.
20. Thus, from the testimony of PW-1 Punni Bai, PW-4 Jageshwari Dehariya, PW-6 Siddhi Bai, PW-7 Shanti Bai and PW-9 Gitanjali Dhritlahre, it is quite established that they are actually eye-witnesses and have seen the incident of assault made by the appellant on deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre with a knife on account of which she received multiple injuries resulting in her death. The defence could not crosselucidate anything substantial from the examination of the aforesaid witnesses so as to discredit their testimony as eye-witnesses to the incident where the appellant has caused death of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre assaulting her with the use of knife. As such, the learned Special Court is absolutely justified in relying upon the testimony of
18 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
PW-1 Punni Bai, PW-4 Jageshwari Dehariya, PW-6 Siddhi Bai, PW-7 Shanti Bai and PW-9 Gitanjali Dhritlahre as eye-witnesses to the incident to base conviction of the appellant for committing murder of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre.
21. Furthermore, PW-1 Punni Bai had reported the incident to the police and Merg Intimation (Exbts. P-2 & P-25) was lodged by her followed by FIR (Ex. P-1 & P-26) in which also she has stated that the appellant was assaulting her daughter Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre with knife and on seeing her son PW-2 Domar Dhritlahre coming to the spot, the appellant ran away from the place of incident. It is well settled law that FIR is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But, omissions of important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. ( See : Ram Kumar
Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh1, Para 9 ). As
such, considering the statement of PW-1 Punni Bai, she is definitely an eye-witness to the incident and has clearly seen the appellant assaulting the deceased
1 AIR 1975 SC 1026
19 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre with knife on account of which she received multiple injuries grievous in nature which caused her death.
Testimony of PW-2 Domar Dhritlahre as res gestae witness
22. PW-2 Domar Dhritlahre is the brother of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre. He has stated in his statement before the Court that on the date of offence in the morning at 7 O’clock when he was returning home after buying vegetables and reached near her house, his mother PW-1 Punni Bai raised an alarm that the appellant was assaulting his sister, Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre, pursuant to which, when he reached the spot he saw that the appellant was possessing a knife on his hands and his clothes were all stained with blood and then he ran away from the spot on seeing him (PW-2). His mother PW-1 Punni Bai was already there at the spot and his sister Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre was lying injured on the ground, who was taken to the house by them and PW-5 Bhupendra Kurre, the medical compounder of the village, checked and declared her dead and he (PW-5) has also supported the case of the prosecution. As such, from the testimony of PW-2 Domar
20 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
Dhritlahre, he can be termed as a res gestae witness and his testimony is admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which finds corroboration from the eye-witness account of PW-1 Punni Bai who has lodged Merg Intimation (Exbts. P-2 & P-25) and FIR (Ex. P-1 & P-26).
Seizure of bloodstained knife and clothes of the appellant pursuant to his memorandum Statement, on which human blood and blood has been found in FSL report
23. In this case, the two witnesses of the memorandum and seizure proceedings, i.e. PW-10 Hridayram and PW-11 Gangaram, both have turned hostile and not fully supported the case of the prosecution. Though PW-10 Hridayram has stated in his statement that the police had not interrogated the appellant before him and no seizure also was made before him from the appellant, but he has admitted his signature on the memorandum statement (Ex. P-9) and seizure memo (Ex. P-10) and has also admitted that he was not at all forced by the police to put his signature on the Exbts. P-9 & P-10. Similarly, PW-11 Gangaram has stated that the appellant was interrogated by the police before him, but the appellant had not disclosed about anything to the police before him. However,
21 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
PW-11 Gangaram has stated that he had also gone to the house of the appellant along with the police and at that time he was taking bath in his bathroom. The police strongly asked him to come out from the bathroom and when he came out, the police had seized knife, shirt and jeans pant from the possession of the appellant and the shirt and jeans pant seized from the appellant both were stained with blood. PW-11 Gangaram has also admitted that he and PW-10 Hridayram both had put their signature on the memorandum statement (Ex. P-9) and seizure memo (Ex. P-10) and he also denied in his crossexamination the suggestion that no recovery was made from the appellant in his presence. It is settled in law that the testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon by the prosecution as well as the defence, if it is corroborated by other reliable evidence. Even otherwise, the Investigating Officer, PW-19 Mukesh Som has fully supported the case of the prosecution so far as the memorandum statement of the appellant followed by the recovery of his bloodstained clothes and knife from his possession and in the FSL report (Ex. P-29), human blood was found on the shirt (Ex. ‘E’) and full-pant (Ex. ‘F’) of the appellant and blood
22 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
was found on the knife (Ex. ‘G’) seized pursuant to his memorandum statement. PW-18 Dr. M. Nirala in his query report (Ex. P-20) also has opined that the injuries inflicted on the body of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre leading to her death as described in her post-mortem report can be caused by the knife which was seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant. The appellant also has failed to offer any explanation as to how human blood was found on his clothes and blood was found on the knife seized from his possession.
Conclusion
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis of the statements of the aforesaid material witnesses, it is crystal clear that PW-1 Punni Bai, PW-4 Jageshwari Dehariya, PW-6 Siddhi Bai, PW-7 Shanti Bai and PW9 Gitanjali Dhritlahre all of them are eye-witnesses to the incident and have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre with a knife which he was having on his hands, followed by PW-2 Domar Dhritlahre who is a res gestae witness and has seen the appellant fleeing away from spot after assaulting his sister, deceased Dhaneshwari
23 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
Dhritlahre. Even if it is assumed that the abovementioned witnesses are interested witnesses as contended on behalf of the appellant, their credibility cannot be doubted merely because they are interested witnesses and merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim or for that matter being a member of the same community as that of the victim, they cannot be termed as interested witnesses and their testimony as eye-witnesses cannot be rejected on that basis alone. Apart from that, the homicidal death of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre also stands duly proved from the medical evidence of PW-18 Dr. M. Nirala who in his post-mortem report has clearly opined that the nature of injuries inflicted on the body of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre was homicidal. Similarly, as per the forensic evidence available on record in the form of FSL report (Ex. P-29), human blood was found on the clothes of the appellant so also blood was found on the knife seized from him pursuant to his memorandum statement. In addition, the motive of offence that the appellant was having one sided love affair with the deceased also found to be proved from the statement of PW-3 Aarti Dehariya and PW-8 Sulekha Khandelwal, though motive is not necessary
24 / 24
(Cr. A. No. 312 of 2019)
in a case based on direct evidence. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the finding of conviction recorded by learned Special Court holding the appellant guilty of committing murder of deceased Dhaneshwari Dhritlahre and so convicting and sentencing him for offence under Sections 302 of IPC, is absolutely justified and well merited finding which does not require our interference in view of the evidence available on record, as discussed above.
25. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in this Criminal Appeal which deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
26. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal
Services Committee.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge
sharad
Digitally signed SHARAD by SHARADKUMAR YADAV KUMARYADAV Date:2024.11.1414:55:34 +0530
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt based on direct eye-witness testimony and corroborating evidence?
Whether the testimony of interested witnesses and a juvenile witness was reliable to sustain the conviction?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶9
Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh1, AIR 1975 SC 1026 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Yogesh @ Lala Verma
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
