Suraj Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CRA No. 889 of 2018

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 889 of 2018

¶6

(Arising out of judgment dated 11.05.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.09/2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Judge of Special Court for trial of C.B.I. cases) Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh)

¶7

Suraj Patel S/o Late Siyaram Patel, aged about 21 years, R/o Dhaneli, Police Station Mujgahan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station, Rakhi District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Appellant :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnkar, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee. For Respondent-State :- Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal

¶14

Judgment On Board

¶15

(25.06.2024)

¶16

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶17

Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the

¶18

present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been filed by the appellant herein calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and

¶19

2

¶20

CRA No. 889 of 2018

¶21

order of sentence dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Judge of Special Court for trial of C.B.I. cases), Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.09/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of ₹ 100/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment 1 month.

¶22

The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 20.09.2017 at about 6:45 am, at Nirmala bank, Pachari Talab, village Uprawara, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, appellant assaulted his cousin brother Lakshmikant Patel (now deceased) by sharp edged weapon knife by which he suffered grievous injuries (8 incised wounds and 4 stab wounds) and died. Sheshnarayan Patel (PW-12), eye witness, reported the matter to the police pursuant to which merg intimation and FIR were registered vide Exs.P/14 & P/13, respectively. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/9. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/6) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/20) proved by Dr. S.K,. Mahilang (PW-14), cause of death was asphyxia due to injuries on lungs and trachea. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the

¶23

3

¶24

CRA No. 889 of 2018

¶25

appellant (Ex.P/2) weapon of offence i.e. knife and clothes have been seized vide Ex.P/3. Others articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and as per FSL report (Ex.P/25) on umbrella (article A), on the clothes of the deceased (articles D1, D2 & D3), on weapon of offence i.e. knife (article E) & on the inner of the appellant (article F) blood was found and human blood was found on the pant of the appellant (article H). As per MLC report (Ex.P/21), Dr. S.K. Mahilang (PW-14), the injuries which were found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the knife which was seized pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant.

¶26

After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence.

¶27

During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents whereas, the appellant in defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against

¶28

4

¶29

CRA No. 889 of 2018

¶30

him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶31

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶32

Mr. Ashok Kumar Swarnkar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for aforesaid offence as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he has falsely been implicated in crime in question. He also submits that Kamdev Patel (PW-10) & Sheshnarayan Patel (PW-12) are not eye witnesses and in the FSL report (Ex.P/25) on the weapon of offence i.e. knife human blood was not found and, as such, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶33

5

¶34

CRA No. 889 of 2018

¶35

On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has been able to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, and, therefore, the appellant has rightly been convicted for the offence in question. Thus, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

The first question as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of Dr. S.K. Mahilang (PW-14) who prepared the postmortem report (Ex.P/20) which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding of the trial Court holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

¶38

Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant is the author of the crime ?

¶39

6

¶40

CRA No. 889 of 2018

¶41

The conviction of the appellant is based on the testimonies of Kamdev Patel (PW-10), Sheshnarayan Patel (PW-12) as well as on the fact that pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/2), weapon of offence i.e. knife was seized vide Ex.P/3 and on which, in FSL report (Ex.P/25), blood was found and as per MLC (Ex.P/21), proved by Dr. S.K. Mahilang (PW-14), the injuries could have been caused by the said knife.

¶42

Sheshnarayan Patel (PW-12) in his statement before the Court has stated that on the date and time of offence he had seen the appellant along with the deceased stepping down towards Nirmala bank Pachari Talab, and at that time Kamdev Patel (PW-10) was also present there along with him (PW-12). He has also stated that after some time they heard the voice of deceased “ Aahh …” and had seen the appellant chasing the deceased. He has further stated that he had seen the appellant catching hold of the deceased and pushing him on the ground and thereafter, appellant absconded from the spot armed with knife which was 8’’ to 10’’ in size, though, he tried to catch him, but to no avail. He (PW-12) has been subjected to some extent of cross-examination, but nothing has been extracted to hold that he has wrongly implicated the appellant in crime in question or has given a false statement. The

¶43

7

¶44

CRA No. 889 of 2018

¶45

statement of Sheshnarayan Patel (PW-12) is duly supported by Kamdev Patel (PW-10).

¶46

Further, deceased has been medically examined by Dr. S.K. Mahilang (PW-14), who has prepared the postmortem report of the deceased vide Ex.P/20. He has noticed 8 incised wounds and 4 stab wounds on the body of the deceased during postmortem examination and stated the cause of death was asphyxia due to cut injuries on lungs and trachea which was homicidal in nature. As per MLC report (Ex.P/21), the said injuries could have been caused by the weapon of offence i.e. knife which was seized pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant. Furthermore, in the FSL report (Ex.P/25) on the weapon of offence i.e. knife and inner of the appellant blood was found and on the full pant of the appellant human blood was found. As such, the statement of Sheshnarayan Patel (PW12) is corroborated by medical evidence (Ex.P/20) as well as forensic evidence (Ex.P/25). Not only this, Kamdev Patel (PW10) who was accompanying Sheshnarayan Patel (PW-12) has also supported the case of the prosecution by stating that he had last the appellant along with the deceased going towards Pachari Talab on the date and time of offence and had also seen the appellant absconding from the spot. Thereafter, they (PW-12 & PW-10) went to the spot and saw the blood stains on

¶47

8

¶48

CRA No. 889 of 2018

¶49

the wall and also saw the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, he is a res gestae witness and his statement is admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity “the IEA”) and also he is a witness of last seen together of the appellant and the deceased. Further, appellant had absconded from the spot armed with weapon of offence i.e. knife and such conduct of the appellant is admissible under Section 8 of the IEA. Similarly, Bhagwani Ram Yadav (PW-1) in his statement before the Court has clearly stated that he had seen the appellant absconding from the spot armed with knife, which is also a relevant fact under Section 8 of the IEA.

¶50

In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is quite vivid that prosecution has able to bring home offence beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature; testimony of eye witness Sheshnarayan Patel (PW-12) is duly corroborated by the medical evidence i.e. postmortem report (Ex.P/20); forensic evidence i.e. FSL report (Ex.P/25) in which on the weapon of offence i.e. knife as well as on the inner of the appellant blood was found and on the full pant of the appellant human blood was found and as per MLC report (Ex.P/21), Dr. S.K. Mahilang (PW-14), the grievous injuries (8 incised wounds and 4 stab wounds) which were found on the body of the deceased could

¶51

9

¶52

CRA No. 889 of 2018

¶53

have been caused by the seized knife and further the testimony of Kamdev Patel (PW-10) and Bhagwani Ram Yadav (PW-1) also clearly supports the testimony of eye witness Sheshnarayan Patel (PW-12) in the shape of corroboration. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

¶54

Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed .

¶55

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

¶56

Ankit

Suraj Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kaushilya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devsingh Porte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhavsingh Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nandpyala Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Vaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh