Dismissed¶42

Phool Singh Rathia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Sept 2024CRA/387/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Phool Singh Rathia v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA-387-2019, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decision dated 20.09.2024 (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J). Keywords: murder by throttling; asphyxia; homicidal death; PM report Ex.P/10; Dr. S.S. Bhagat PW-07; eyewitness testimony of close relatives / interest witnesses (daughter-in-law PW-02, minor daughter PW-04); corroboration by husband PW-01; Section 302 IPC; Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.; Section 175 CrPC; Sessions Case No.01 of 2018; conviction affirmed; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The death of the deceased is homicidal in nature; the trial Court's finding based on the postmortem report (Ex.P/10) and the statement of Dr. S.S. Bhagat (PW-07) is neither perverse nor contrary to record and is affirmed. ¶34

Phool Singh Rathia Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. +2 more

¶32

Court's answer

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The appellant committed the murder of Teejo Bai as the author of the crime; the trial Court's finding and sentence are strictly in accordance with law, contain no illegality or perversity, and are affirmed.

¶41

Key takeaways

Nothing was extracted in cross-examination of the eyewitnesses Smt. Girja (PW-02) and Giwanti (PW-04) to show they did not see the incident or were lying; their statements were supported by the PM report (Ex.P/10) and the factum of presence in the house was proved by Suresh Rathiya (PW-01), husband of the deceased.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against conviction under Section 302 IPC dismissed. The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda (Sessions Case No.01 of 2018, judgment dated 10.01.2019) for throttling his mother-in-law Teejo Bai to death at Village Narkalo on 07.07.2017. The Division Bench affirmed (i) the finding that the death was homicidal, resting on the PM report (Ex.P/10) and the statement of Dr. S.S. Bhagat (PW-07); and (ii) the finding that the appellant was the author of the crime, relying on the direct testimonies of Smt. Girja (PW-02, daughter-in-law) and Giwanti (PW-04, minor daughter), whose cross-examination yielded nothing to discredit them, whose statements matched the medical evidence of asphyxia due to throttling, and whose presence in the house with the deceased and appellant was confirmed by Suresh Rathiya (PW-01), husband of the deceased. Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial Court's findings, the Court affirmed the conviction and sentence (life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, default 30 days RI) and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

¶1

Page No.1 of 7 IN CRA-387-2019

¶2

Digitally signed by SAIFAN SAIFAN KHAN Date: KHAN 2024.09.24 17:41:32 +0530

¶3

2024:CGHC:36959-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 20 19

¶7

[Arising out of judgment dated 10.01.2019, passed in Sessions Case No.01 of 2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Phool Singh Rathia), by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.)]

¶8

Phool Singh Rathia, Son of Amrit Singh Rathia, aged about 35 years, Resident of Village Chorbhatti, Police Station Kartala, District Korba (CG)

¶9

---- Appellant (In Jail)

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Division Bench

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Judgment on Board (20.09.2024)

¶17

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶18

(1) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the sole appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2019, passed in Sessions Case No.01 of 2018

¶19

Page No.2 of 7 IN CRA-387-2019

¶20

(State of Chhattisgarh v. Phool Singh Rathia), by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 30 days.

¶21

(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that 07.07.2017 at about 01:00 PM in the afternoon, at Village Narkalo, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (CG), the accused-appellant with the intent to kill his mother-in-law, namely, Teejo Bai (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), throttled her, due to which she died and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offence.

¶22

(3) It is further case of the prosecution that when Suresh Rathiya (PW-01) reported the matter to the police, merg. intimation (Ex.P/02) and FIR (Ex.P/01) were registered by the police and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/03 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/04. Spot map and panchnama were also prepared vide Ex.P/08 & Ex.P/09 respectively. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. S.S. Bhagat (PW-07) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/10), cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to throttling and nature of death is

¶23

Page No.3 of 7 IN CRA-387-2019

¶24

homicidal. The appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/11. From the place of incident, pieces of broken bangles of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P/07. After statements of witnesses were recorded and due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.

¶25

(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶26

(5) 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.

¶27

(6) Mr. Govind Dewangan, 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 appellant has been

¶28

Page No.4 of 7 IN CRA-387-2019

¶29

convicted on the basis of testimonies of eye-witnesses, namely, Smt. Girja (PW-02) and Giwanti (PW-04), however, the same cannot be relied upon for the reason that both the witnesses are interest witnesses being daughter-in-law and daughter of the deceased respectively. Except this, there is no material available on record to connect the appellant herein with the aforesaid offence. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶30

(7) Per-contra , 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. In view of the statements of prosecution witnesses, specially, Smt. Girja (PW-02) and Giwanti (PW-04) coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶31

(8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶32

(9) 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

¶33

Page No.5 of 7 IN CRA-387-2019

¶34

of death of deceased is ashpyxia due throttling and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. S.S. Bhagat (PW-07). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/10) and the statement of Dr. S.S. Bhagat (PW-07), who has conducted the postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the death of the 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.

¶35

(10) Now, the next question would be whether the accusedappellant herein is the author of the crime in question or not?

¶36

(11) In the case at hand, the case of the prosecution is totally based on direct testimonies of Smt. Girja (PW-02) and Giwanti (PW04), who are daughter-in-law and daughter of the deceased respectively, therefore, being close relatives of the deceased, their testimonies have to be scrutinized carefully.

¶37

(12) Smt. Girja (PW-02), who is daughter-in-law of the deceased has stated before the Court that on the date and time of the offence she alongwith her mother-in-law (deceased), her ‘nand’ (Giwanti) and the appellant all were in the house and, at the time when the deceased was having her food, all of a sudden, the appellant started throttling the deceased, pursuant to which, she alongwith Giwanti (PW-04) tried to intervene, upon which, the appellant ran away from the spot and, thereafter, the deceased fell down on the floor and

¶38

Page No.6 of 7 IN CRA-387-2019

¶39

died. Similarly, Giwanti (PW-04), who is minor daughter of the deceased has also supported the case of the prosecution and reiterated the same version as has been stated by Smt. Girja (PW02) by stating that on the date and time of the offence, while the deceased was having food, the appellant throttled her, due to which, she died. Giwanti (PW-04) has also stated that though he tried to administer water to the deceased, but not to avail. Both the said witnesses, namely, Smt. Girja (PW-02) and Giwanti (PW-04) were subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the defence, but nothing could be extracted from them to hold that they have not seen the incident or they are telling lie before the Court in order to falsely implicate the appellant. Further, the said statements of Smt. Girja (PW-02) and Giwanti (PW-04) have also been supported by medical evidence available on record i.e. PM report of the deceased vide Ex.P/10, wherein it has clearly been mentioned that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to throttling. However, the factum of presence of Smt. Girja (PW-02) and Giwanti (PW-04) in the house alongwith the appellant and the deceased at the time of the offence, has further been proved by Suresh Rathiya (PW-01), who is husband of the deceased, whereby he has stated that on date and time of the offence, while he has gone out for some work, his wife (deceased) alongwith Smt. Girja (PW-02) and Giwanti (PW-04) and the appellant were present in the house. As such, on the basis of aforesaid evidence available on record, the finding recorded by the

¶40

Page No.7 of 7 IN CRA-387-2019

¶41

learned trial Court that the appellant has committed murder of Teejo Bai (deceased) being the author of the crime, is strictly in accordance with law and, for which, he has rightly been punished and sentenced. We do not find any illegality or perversity in findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶42

(13) In view of foregoing analysis, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal warranting interference in the impugned judgment dated 10.01.2019. It is, accordingly, dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶43

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶44

s@if

Phool Singh Rathia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phool Singh Rathia v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamuram Lekami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumar Singh Bhuarya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Panchlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Basant Kumar Jain

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- CIRCLE-2(1) Vs Vijayshree Fats and Oil Products Pvt. Ltd.