Partly allowed

Vishnu Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC25 Nov 2024CRA/472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allows an appeal against conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 307 and 450 IPC arising from a fatal assault. The court upholds the conviction but finds the trial court's sentence of life imprisonment excessive, modifying it to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Sentence of life imprisonment under Section 307 IPC was modified to ten years rigorous imprisonment; conviction and sentence under Section 450 IPC were affirmed.

Vishnu Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:46307-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 472 of 2024

¶6

Vishnu Satnami S/o Kejau Satnami Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bano (Kuwa), Thana Pipariya, Dist. Kabirdham, C.G.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pipariya, Dist. Kabirdham, C.G.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate.

¶12

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶13

Hon’ble Mr. Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

26/11/2024

¶17

1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.01.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 24/2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶18

Conviction under	Rigorous	Fine	Default
Section	imprisonment		Sentence
450 of the Indian Penal	7 years	Rs. 1000/-	1 month

¶19

¶20

Code (for short, the IPC)
307 of IPC	Life imprisonment	Rs. 10,000/- 6 months
307 of IPC	Life imprisonment	Rs. 10,000/- 6 months
Sentences have been dir	ected to run concur	rently.

¶21

2. Today, the matter is listed for hearing on IA No. 1/2024, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶22

3. The accused is charged under Sections 450 and 307 (twice) of the Indian Penal Code alleging that on 21.01.2023 at between 07:00-07:30 p.m., he entered the shop of complainant Jagdish Chandrakar (PW-3) in village Kuan Bano, police station Pipariya with the intention of committing an offence punishable with life imprisonment and committed house trespass and made a fatal attack on the head of the injured Lata Chandrakar (PW-1) and Payal (PW-2) with an axe ( Tangia ).

¶23

4. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Jagdish Chandrakar (PW-3) was earning his livelihood by opening a small grocery shop in his own house. He had three sons, all of whom are married. Rajesh is his younger son, who works as a driver outside, daughter-in-law Lata Chandrakar (PW-1) lives with him, for whom a separate shop has been opened in the house, his grocery shop is at another place. On 21.01.2023, at around 06:30 p.m., he closed the shop and came home. Daughter-in-law Lata (PW-1) was in the shop situated at home. At around 07:30 p.m., appellant’s son, who lives in the neighborhood, came with Rs. 100/- to buy grocery items and went away with the goods. After a while, the appellant came to the shop and started arguing with Lata (PW-1) that he had sent his son by giving him Rs 500/-, but she kept the entire money and did not return. The appellant further stated that he

¶24

¶25

would return his loan amount upon which Lata (PW-1) explained that his son had came to the shop only with Rs. 100/-. On this, the appellant started quarreling stating that she always does like that and that he would kill her. He brought an iron axe from his house and entered the house and gave a blow on the head of Lata (PW-1) with the axe stating that he would not spare her on that day, and because of such assault, Lata fell unconscious. Her granddaughter Payal (PW-2) was also standing there, and when she ran away from there, appellant ran after her also and threatened to kill her and and hit her on the head with a tangai towards the back of the house, due to which she also fell unconscious. When Jagdish ran to save her, the appelant ran away with the Tangia. Lata had a deep injury on the left side of her head and Payal had an injury on the back of her head. Appellant Vishnu had inflicted a fatal injury by hitting them on the head with a tangai with the intention of cause their death. Lata and Payal were taken to Kawardha District Hospital with the help of family members and neighbors, from where they were referred to Raipur by the Doctor looking to their serious condition.

¶26

5. On a report being lodged by the complainant Jagdish Chandrakar (PW3) at Pipariya Police Station, Inspector Rajendra Singh Rajput (PW-17) registered a case against the accused under Section 450 and 307 IPC under Crime No. 51/2023 and registered First Information Report (Exhibit P/1). On receiving information from District Hospital Kawardha about the injured Lata Chandrakar and Payal Chandrakar being admitted, to Police Assistance Center, District Hospital Kawardha, on 21.01.2023 due to injuries caused by assault, Head Constable Dhanna Singh (PW-16) sent the injured Lata Chandrakar, wife of Rajendra Chandrakar and injured Payal Chandrakar, daughter of Balram Chandrakar to District Hospital Kawardha. An application for medical examination was given, then Dr.

¶27

¶28

Madhusudan Dongre (PW-10) conducted the MLC of the injured Lata Chandrakar and provided report (Exhibit P/17) and after MLC of the injured Payal Chandrakar, report vide Exhibit P/18 was provided. Dr. Sajan Agrawal (PW-14), Surgeon, informed vide Exhibit P/25 and P/26 to the Police Station Incharge Saraswati Nagar Raipur, about the admission of Lata Chandrakar (PW-1) and Payal Chandrakar (PW-2) in Agarwal Hospital, Raipur due to injuries caused by assault on 22.01.2023 and the injured Payal was treated and discharge summary Article A-2 was provided. Dr. Amit Kumar Jain (PW-11) treated the injured Lata and provided the discharge ticket of the injured Lata and the verified photocopy of the treatment related documents Article A-1 was provided.

¶29

6. During the investigation by the investigating ofÏcer, Sub Inspector, P.S. Thakur (PW-18), on 22.01.2023, after reaching the spot, prepared a spot map (Exhibit P/2) of the place of incident as per the information given by the complainant. Blood soaked soil along with grass and plain soil in a plastic box were seized from the spot as per seizure memo (Exhibit P/4). Blood soaked concrete in a plastic box and plain concrete in a plastic box were seized from the spot as per seizure memo (Exhibit P/5). The witnesses Pawan Chandrakar (PW-5) and Ghanshyam Gandharva (PW9) were given notices (Exhibit P/6 and P/12) to remain present at the time of interrogation with the appellant. The appellant was taken into custody and after questioning him in presence of witnesses, memorandum statement (Exhibit P/7) was recorded and on the basis of memorandum of the appellant and at the instance of the appellant, one iron tangia, one full sleeve shirt, one full pant were seized as per seizure memo Exhibit P/8. The appellant was arrested as vide memo Exhibit P/13 and information regarding his arrest was given to Kejau Satnami and

¶30

¶31

acknowledgment of information (Exhibit P/29) was obtained.

¶32

7. On 22.01.2023, when Rajesh Chandrakar (PW-8) brought and presented the tops, lowers and sweater worn by injured Payal Chandrakar at the time of the incident and the sari , blouse and scarf worn by injured Lata Chandrakar at the time of the incident, the same were seized as per seizure memo Exhibit P/10 by Head Constable, Satish Sahu (PW-19). On 24.01.2023, the IO (PW-18) gave an application (Exhibit P/30) to the Naib Tehsildar, Pipariya for getting the map of the place of incident prepared by the Patwari. On 30.01.2023, Dinesh Yadav, Patwari, on the direction of the Tehsildar Pipariya, prepared a spot map (Exhibit P/3). On 31.01.2023, the IO (PW-18) sent a query (Exhibit P/19 to P/24) to the Medical OfÏcer, District Health Center, Kawardha, seeking certain queries with respect to the seized axe and the injuries sustained by the injured and the blood found on the clothes. On the same date, the Medical OfÏcer, District Health Center, Kawardha was asked to provide medical report of Lata Chandrakar to the doctor.

¶33

8. On receipt of the query with regard to seized iron tangiya and clothes in the case, Dr. Madhusudan Dongre, Medical OfÏcer, on 01.02.2023, examined the seized tangiya and clothes query report Exhibit P/19 and P/20 was provided. The bedhead ticket was seized from Constable Nitesh Kumar on being brought from the hospital vide Exhibit P/27. The articles seized during investigation were sent to the FSL for examination and its report were obtained. During the investigation, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of witnesses Jagdish Chandrakar, Dina Bai, Mrs. Nandini, Pratigya, Omprakash, Sanjay Yadav, Kanwal Chandrakar, Rinki Chandrakar, Payal Chandrakar, Lata Chandrakar and Ghanshyam Gandharva were recorded. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant before the learned trial court.

¶34

¶35

9. Charges were framed against the appellant on 23.06.2023 by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Section 450 of the IPC and Section 307 (two counts) of the IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.

¶36

10. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses namely Lata Chandrakar (PW-1), Payal Chandrakar (PW2), Jagdish Chandrakar (PW-3), Sanjay Yadav (PW-4), Pawan Chandrakar (PW-5), Nandini (PW-6), Dina Bai (PW-7), Rajesh (PW-8), Dhanshyam Gandharva (PW-9), Dr. Madhusudan Dongre (PW-10), Dr. Amit Kumar Jain (PW-11), Rinki (PW-12), Nitesh Kumar Premi (PW-13), Dr. Sajan Agarwal (PW-14), Dinesh Yadav (PW-15), Ghanna Singh (PW-16), Inspector R.S. Rajput (PW-17), Sub-Inspector P.S. Thakur (PW-18) and Head Constable Satish Sahu (PW-19) and exhibited as many as 34 exhibits in support of its case.

¶37

11. The statement of the convicts/appellant was recorded under section 313 CrPC. He expressed his ignorance about most of the questions, however, some of them were denied as well. He stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated.

¶38

12. The learned trial Judge, after considering the statement of witnesses and evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant / convict as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict.

¶39

13. Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients of offence under Section 307 IPC are missing. The injured witnesses are relatives and are interested witnesses. The injury sustained by Payal (PW-2) are simple in nature There was previous animosity between the

¶40

¶41

family of the victim and the appellant and as such, he has been falsely implicated. There is no independent eye witness to the incident. There are omissions and material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and as such, merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the appellants cannot be convicted and this appeal deserves to be allowed. Lastly, he submits that the learned trial Court has erred by awarding a harsher punishment of imprisonment for life whereas, the appellant could have been given the minimum punishment of 10 years.

¶42

14. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent would submit that the learned Court below was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the convicts/appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph. There is ample evidence on record to hold the appellants guilty of the offence. The order passed by the learned Court below needs no interference and the appeals filed by the convicts/appellants be dismissed.

¶43

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

¶44

16. In the present case, the evidence of the injured Lata (PW-1) and Payal (PW-2) are of utmost importance. Both these witnesses have in a clear and categorical terms narrated the entire sequence of events as to how the appellant came to their shop and started quarelling with regard to having given Rs. 500/- to his son for purchasing some articles whereas, as per the victim, the son of the appellant had given only Rs. 100/- to her. The evidence of both the witnesses is clear and unambiguous with regard to the fact that the appellant assaulted both of them on their head with an iron axe. This incident was further witnessed by Jagdish Chandrakar (PW-3) who is the father-in-law of Lata Chandrakar (PW-1).

¶45

¶46

He stated that because of the assault by the appellant with a Tangia, the left side of the body of Lata Chandrakar had paralysed. Nandini (PW-6) and Deena Bai (PW-7) are also the eye witnesses to the incident.

¶47

17. The nature of injuries have been explained in the MLC report (Exhibit P/17) of Lata (PW-1) wherein the Doctor has found incised wound 9X5 c.m. deep upto bone at left temporal bone and fracture in skull bone was also found with prolapsed brain matter. Dr. Madhusudan Dongre, who is the Medical OfÏcer who had examined Lata Chandrakar (PW-1) has clearly deposed that the injuries sustained by the victim was grievous in nature and could have been fatal to her life and the same was likely to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. This witness had also examined Payal Chandrakar (PW-2) who found incised wound of 7x3.5 c.m. deep upto bone at mid parietal which was in the shape of inverted ‘T’. This witness had given the query report and opined that the injuries could have been caused with the iron axe and the injuries were sufÏcient to cause death. For ascertaining whether the blood found on the clothes was human blood or not, he had advised for FSL examination. Another Doctor namely Dr. Amit Kumar Jain (PW-11) had treated and operated Lata Chandrakar (PW-1) and also treated Payal Chandrakar (PW-2).

¶48

18. In his memorandum statement (Exhibit P/7), the appellant has also admitted the fact of assault being made by him to the victims. The said memorandum was recorded in presence of Pawan Chandrakar (PW-5) and Ghanshyam Gandharva (PW-9). Iron axe has been recovered from the appellant at his instance vide Exhibit P/8 in which blood stains were found.

¶49

19. In the FSL report, in Articles A, B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M which are axe, full shirt of appellant, full pant of appellant, concrete seized from the inside of the house of Lata Chandrakar, blood stained soil from the house

¶50

¶51

of Lata Chandrakar, Top/Shirt, Lower and Sweater of Payal Chandrakar (PW-2), Saree, Blouse and Scarf of Lata Chandrakar (PW-1), respectively, human blood was found. Hence, there remains no manner of doubt that it was the appellant who had committed the crime in question.

¶52

20. Now the question would be, whether the learned trial Court was justified in awarding life imprisonment to the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC (on two counts)?

¶53

21. Section 307 of the IPC states that w hoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. ”

¶54

22. There is no manner of doubt that the act of the appellant falls under Section 307 of the IPC. When he trespassed the house of the victim with an intent to cause their murder, there remains no manner of doubt that he is also guilty of the offence punishable under Section 450 of the IPC for which he has been sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-. We concur with the said finding so far as offence under Section 450 IPC is concerned.

¶55

23. With regard to offence under Section 307 IPC is concerned, the injuries sustained by Lata Chandrakar (PW-1) is stated to be grievous in nature because of which half of her body has been paralyzed, but the injuries sustained by other victim namely Payal Chandrakar (PW-2) though was serious but not as fatal as to cause death. As such, this Court is of the

¶56

¶57

view that sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC on two counts, is on a higher side and as such, we modify the sentence to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC (two counts) with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The fine amount and the default penalty imposed by the learned trial Court is afÏrmed.

¶58

24. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed .

¶59

25. The appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining period of sentence as has been modified by this Court.

¶60

26. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence 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.

¶61

27. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.

¶62

Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶64

Amit

¶65

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2024.12.03 14:39:44 +0530

Vishnu Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Satnami 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

Uday Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Vikas Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

B.K. Jha Vs Coal India Limited

M/S Geetanjali Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Geetanjali Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Unique Structure and Towers Ltd. Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited and Ors.