Allowed

Dharmendra @ Kudu Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC24 Nov 2024CRA/407/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against death sentence under Section 302 IPC. The High Court held that prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and appellant acquitted. Bail bond directed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentencing judgment set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges; bail bond directed.

Dharmendra @ Kudu Manikpuri Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 7

2024:CGHC:45982-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 407 of 2020

¶6

Dharmendra @ Kudu Manikpuri S/o Late Amar Sai Aged About 29 Years Occuption Rajmistri R/o Village Kuruwa, Police Station Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Vishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Shri Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

¶14

2 / 7

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶17

25.11.2024

¶18

This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2020, passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur District Surajpur (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 89/2018, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 month.

¶19

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 17.10.2018 at about 5 PM, appellant/accused assaulted his mother/deceased by throwing iron trident (trisul), which hit the deceased neck and got stuck. When she was taken to the hospital the doctor declared her dead. The matter was reported by the complainant Ram Lakhan (PW-1) to Police Station, Vishrampur, pursuant to which, merg intimation was registered vide Ex. P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex. P-2, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body of deceased Aitwari Bai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Amit Bhagat (PW-13), who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-28, according to which, death occurred due to shock caused due to multiple fractures of the right and left rib in the body and injury to the neck and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant

¶20

3 / 7

¶21

Ex.P-7, trident (trisul) vide Ex. P-8, Soil vide Ex. P.9 & deceased clothes vide Ex. P-14 were also seized, which were sent for examination to FSL, on which blood was found as per FSL report dated 23.03.2019. After due investigation, appellant was chargesheeted for the aforesaid offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. before the jurisdictional criminal Court, which ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

¶22

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents and the appellant/accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor has exhibited any document.

¶23

The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶24

Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C, as the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that (PW4) Phoolwati daughter of deceased and sister of accused is the eye witness of

¶25

4 / 7

¶26

the incident but she has not supported the case of prosecution and denied the incident of murder. He lastly submits that the deceased was suffering from ‘Mirgi’ disease and due to the influence of that disease i.e. ‘Mirgi’, she fell down and the injury was sustained by iron trident (trisul) resulting her death. It is submitted that the statement of prosecution witnesses were contradictory and not supported the case of the prosecution, the appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.

¶27

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

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

¶29

The first question as to whether the death of deceased Aitwari Bai was homicidal in nature, the same has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative holding the death to be homicidal in nature relying upon the statement of Dr. Amit Bhagat (PW-13) who has proved the post mortem report Ex. P-28, according to which, cause of death was due to multiple fractures of the right and left rib in the body and injury to the neck and death was homicidal in nature, which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact

¶30

5 / 7

¶31

based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶32

Next question arose as to whether the appellant committed murder of the deceased or not?

¶33

Looking to the statement of Phulwati (PW-4), sister of the appellant, in her cross examination she deposed that her mother/deceased was suffering from fits disease and on the date of incident she was basking in the sun, where trident (trisul) was kept. She further deposed that due to epileptic attack, she fell on the trident (trishul) on account of which the trident pierced her neck. On being heard the noise, the appellant came to the spot.

¶34

Looking to the statement of Ram Lakhan (PW-1) in his crossexamination he stated that, It is incorrect to say that dispute occurred between the appellant and deceased with respect to money and he further deposed that it is incorrect to say that the appellant got angry and assaulted the deceased by means of trident (trishul).

¶35

The next witness is Dr. Amit Bhagat (PW-13) who has conducted the post mortem of the deceased in his cross-examination he deposed that the injury suffered by the deceased can be caused by falling on hard and pointed object kept on the ground.

¶36

Reverting to the facts of the present case, looking to the statements of Phulwati (PW-4) sister of the accused/appellant in which, she stated that the causes of the death of deceased was

¶37

6 / 7

¶38

due to the falling on the hard and pointed objected i.e. trident (Trishul), which was kept in the house. Apart from that, Dr. Amit Bhagat (PW-13) who has conducted the post mortem of deceased, in which, he stated that the death of deceased can be caused by falling on the hard and pointed object. Moreover, Ram Lakhan (PW-1) has not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶39

After discussing the aforesaid evidence and considering the statement of Phulwati (PW-4), sister of the appellant/accused and Dr. Amit Bhagat (PW-13), who has conducted the post-mortem of deceased, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.

¶40

In the result, the appeal is Allowed. T he impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11/02/2020 is set aside . The appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. The appellant is already on bail.

¶41

Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶42

7 / 7

¶43

The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be

¶44

sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance

¶45

and necessary action.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(RAJANI DUBEY) (BIBHU DATTA GURU) Judge Judge

¶49

Shoaib

¶50

Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2024.12.02
14:54:19
+0530

Dharmendra @ Kudu Manikpuri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra @ Kudu Manikpuri 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

Raj Narayan Sahu @ Raju Vs Deepak Kumar Jha

Smt. Ramindar Kaur Dutta Vs Ashish Bhutada

Kalyan Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S A.K.S. Infratech Vs Shri Shashikant Singh Bhuwal

Chhotu Kaser Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhuvan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh