The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for murder and house-trespass. The Court upheld the trial court's reliance on the testimony of the deceased's wife, corroborated by the post-mortem report and FSL evidence, confirming the homicidal nature of the death and the appellant's guilt.
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
CRA No. 941 of 2018
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 941 of 2018
Ranjit @ Mantu son of Kailash, aged about 27 years, CasteRautiya, resident of Village- Talasili, Chowki- Sonkyari, Police Station- Sanna, District- Jashpur (CG).
---- Appellant
(In jail)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sanna, District Jashpur (CG)
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State/Respondent : Shri Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment On Board
(25.06.2024)
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
1 . This appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.06.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur (CG) in Sessions Trial
2
CRA No. 941 of 2018
No.10/2018, whereby, the appellant has been convicted and
sentenced as under :-
| Conviction | Sentence |
|---|---|
| Under Section 449 of Indian Penal Code |
Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 02 months additional rigorous imprisonment |
| Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code |
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional rigorous imprisonment Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. |
2 . Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2017, at about 20.00 hrs. at village Talasili Bahra Khoier, Chowki- Sonkyari, Police Station -Sanna, District Jashpur (CG), the appellant- Ranjit @ Mantu entered into the house of Sahru Ram (since deceased) and firstly, pressed the neck of his wife, Luru Bai, who jerked him and escaped and thereafter, the appellant pressed the neck of the deceased- Sahru Ram, owing to which, he died. An oral merg intimation was given by said Luru Bai on the next day i.e. on 21.10.2017 at 14.00 hrs. vide Ex. P-1 and thereafter, the written merg was recorded vide Ex. P-9, and F.I.R. (Ex.P-10) thereupon was registered on 21.10.2017 against the appellant for the offence punishable
3
CRA No. 941 of 2018
under Sections 302 and 449 IPC. Inquest (Ex.P-5) of the dead body of the deceased was made on 21.10.2017 and it was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Sunil Kumar Lakra (PW-12), who vide his report (Ex.P-26) opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling and accordingly, held to be homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, the bloodstained T-Shirt of the appellant was recovered on 22.10.2017 vide seizure memo (Ex.P-3), which was sent for chemical examination, where human blood was found in the F.S.L. report (Ex.P-21). The appellant was arrested on 22.10.2017 and after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur, who in turn, committed the matter for its trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jushpur, where the charge has been framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 449 and 302 IPC.
3 . The appellant has denied the charges so framed and claimed to be tried.
4 . In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/appellant, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents, while none was examined by the appellant in his defence.
4
CRA No. 941 of 2018
5 . After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court by placing its reliance upon the testimony of the deceased’s wife- Luru Bai (PW-1), held the appellant to be the author of the alleged crime and accordingly, he has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above.
6 . Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
7 . Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding of the trial Court holding the appellant to be author of the alleged crime based upon the statement of said Luru Bai (PW-1) is apparently, contrary to law and deserves to be set aside.
8 . On the other hand, Shri Ankur Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the trial Court.
9 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
10. The questions, which arise for determination in this appeal are, as to whether the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal in nature ? and, whether the appellant was rightly held to be the author of the alleged crime by the trial Court,
5
CRA No. 941 of 2018
while placing its reliance upon the testimony of the eye-witness, namely, Luru Bai (PW-1) ?
11. The autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Sunil Kumar Lakra (PW-12), who vide his report (Ex.P-26), has opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to throttling and accordingly, it was held to be homicidal in nature. After considering the said report (Ex.P-26), duly corroborated by the statement of Dr. Sunil Kumar Lakra (PW12), the trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and, we, accordingly, affirm the same.
12. It is now to be seen as to whether the appellant was rightly held to be the author of the alleged crime based upon the testimony of said Luru Bai (PW-1), the wife of the deceased ?
13. According to testimony of Luru Bai (PW-1), she and her husband had gone to her elder daughter’s house, namely, Jagpati and when they were returning in the evening, the appellant met on the way and took her husband on his lap and they all went into the house, where he pressed her neck from backside and somehow, she managed to get rid of her, but thereafter, he pressed the neck of her husband, owing to which, he died. She deposed further that, at that particular time, one Rakeshwar and Balkishun of her village were there with them,
6
CRA No. 941 of 2018
but they got scared and ran away. She deposed further that since her husband has given land to their daughter, therefore, the appellant was not happy and because of that, he murdered her husband while pressing his neck. She was not found to be deviated from her version in cross-examination. It, thus, appears from her testimony that the appellant, while pressing the neck of her husband, has killed him. Her said version is duly supported by the postmortem report (Ex.-26), as the cause of death of her husband was found to be asphyxia due to throttling. It appears further that the blood found on the T-Shirt of the appellant and Dhoti of the deceased, on which, blood of blood group “A” was found, which was of the same group of her husband as evident from the FSL report (Ex.P-21).
14. In view of the testimony of the deceased’s wife, Luru Bai (PW-1), it is evident that her husband has died, owing to the alleged act of the appellant. The trial Court, therefore, upon due consideration of her testimony, has not committed any illegality in holding the appellant guilty for the commission of alleged crime.
15. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Judge
7
CRA No. 941 of 2018
sunita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal in nature?
Whether the appellant was rightly held to be the author of the alleged crime by the trial Court based on the testimony of the eye-witness?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ranjit @ Mantu
State Of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Sanjay S. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
