Preetram Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:16275-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 472 of 2019

¶6

Preetram Kashyap, S/o Devchand Kashyap, aged about 24 years, By Caste Halba, R/o Village Mohera Badepara, Police Station – Magarloda, District Dhamtari (C.G.).

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh : Through The Station House Officer, Police of Police Station – Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

(Judgment On Board)

07.04.2025

Per Rajani Dubey, J

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of

¶17

conviction and order of sentence dated 10.01.2019 passed

¶18

2

¶19

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Link Court, Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.), in S.T. No.59/2017 whereby and whereunder appellant Preetram Kashyap has been held guilty for commission of offence and sentenced as described below :-

¶20

CONVICTION		SENTENCE
Under Section 302 IPC	R.I. for l and in d amount for 03 m	ife with fine of Rs.100/- efault of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. onths.
Under Section 25 (1B) b of the Arms Act	R.I. for Rs.100/ paymen further months.	01 year with fine of - and in default of t of fine amount, to undergo R.I. for 03
Under Section 27 of the Arms Act	R.I. for Rs.100/ paymen further months.	03 years with fine of - and in default of t of fine amount, to undergo R.I. for 03

¶21

The prosecution story, leading to conviction of the appellant is that on 10.09.2017 at around 8.15 AM, complainant Gaind Kumar Churpal made a written report in police station Magarload to the effect that on 10.09.2017 at around 6.00 AM, when he was returning to his house after leaving the cattle in cowshed, he saw that blood was spread on the street in front of house of Tribhuwan and when he went inside his home, he saw his sister Bajeshwari had serious injuries on her body and his family members told that accused/appellant Preetram Kashyap, who was in one sided

¶22

3

¶23

love with his sister, pressurized her to marry and when she denied to marry with accused/appellant, he with intention to kill his sister, stabbed her with knife to death and he also caused injuries to Parmeshwar, who had come to intervene and then ran away from the spot. Thereafter, he went to his house and consumed insecticide and was taken to Gariyaband Hospital for treatment. On the basis of this report by complainant Gaind Kumar Churpal, an FIR (Ex.P/1) under Crime No.185/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was registered against the accused/appellant and the matter was then investigated.

¶24

During the course of investigation, inquest on the body of deceased was prepared under Ex.P/4 and the body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Center, Magarload, where Dr. Aditya Sinha (PW-14) conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-32 opining the cause of death of deceased to be brain hemorrhage and the death was homicidal in nature.

¶25

After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant under Sections 302, 324 of IPC, Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act to which the accusedappellant abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial.

¶26

So as to hold the accused-appellant guilty, the prosecution

¶27

4

¶28

has examined as many as 20 witnesses. Statement of the accused-appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶29

The learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye-witness account to the occurrence and the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence but none of the circumstances from which the inference of guilt of appellant can be drawn has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, there can be no inference that it was the appellant who committed the murder. Learned counsel further submits that there is no direct evidence against the accused-appellant to connect him with the crime in question. There are material contradiction and omissions in the statement of Tribhuwan Halba (PW-4) and Parmeshwar (PW-8) but the learned trial Court ignoring the contradictions and omission in the statement of the these witnesses, convicted the accused-appellant, which is not sustainable under the law. The prosecution has utterly failed

¶31

5

¶32

to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused-appellant may be acquitted giving benefit of doubt. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this High Court in the matter of Devsai Cherva Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 399.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted the accusedappellant and no interference is called for by this Court. The appeal has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that charges under Sections 302, 324 of IPC and 25(1B) b and 27 of Arms Act were framed against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant accordingly & sentenced him as described in para 01 of this judgment.

¶36

Nirbhay Singh (PW-16) is retired Inspector and the Investigating Officer. He has stated that on the report of informant namely Gaid Kumar, he recorded the merg

¶37

6

¶38

intimation No. 46/17 (Ex.P-2) and admitted his signature on ‘B to B’ part and informant signature on ‘C to C’ part. He has also stated that he issued notice (Ex.P-3) to panch witnesses and prepared inquest memo (Ex.P-4) in their presence.

¶39

Dr. Aditya Sinha (PW-14) is the autopsy surgeon. He has stated that he conducted autopsy on the body of deceased and found following injuries :-

¶40

(i) Injury on left thigh in the size of 2 x 4 cm.

¶41

(ii) Injury between 11^th and 12^th rib. (iii) Injury below sternum bone.

¶42

(iv) Injury on left index finger.

¶43

(v) Injury on right side of spinal cord in the size of 2 x 2 cm.

¶44

(vi) There was injury caused by sharp weapon on the left and back side of tight.

¶45

(vii) Parietal and frontal bone was fracture in x shape.

¶46

The Autopsy Surgeon opined the cause of death of deceased to be brain hemorrhage and the death was homicidal in nature and gave his report under Ex.P-32. In cross-examination, the Autopsy Surgeon admitted that in the external examination the length and width of the injury Nos. 2 to 4 was not mentioned in the postmortem report by him but he denied this suggestion that deceased committed suicide and injuries were self inflicted.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid testimony of autopsy surgeon (PW-

¶48

7

¶49

and the postmortem report (Ex.P-32), it is stand proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died due to antemortem injuries. Further, the weapon of offence i.e. knife was seized and subjected to query from autopsy surgeon, whereupn he gave his query report under Ex.P23/A opining that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the weapon seized and he advice for its confirmation from the FSL. The prosecution has send the weapon of offence for its chemical examination to FSL and as per the FSL report, human blood was found on the Article – D i.e. knife. Thus, the prosecution has proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died due to antemortem injuries, which was caused by sharp edged weapon and the death was homicidal in nature.

¶50

Now we have to examine whether the accused/appellant is the author of crime or not ?

¶51

In this context, we have gone through the evidence of Bindabai Churpal (PW-1) who is the mother of deceased. She has stated that on the date of incident when she was sleeping at home, at the relevant time, her grandson Adi came running to the house and told her that accused Preetram was assaulting his aunt - the deceased. When she went to the place of occurrence, she saw that the accused

¶52

8

¶53

Preetram had killed her daughter and fled away. Her daughter died instantaneous death. The prosecution declared this witness hostile and cross-examined her but she denied this suggestion of prosecution that when she reached the place of occurrence, Parmeshwar (PW-8) and Tribhuwan (PW-4) told her that accused Preetram killed deceased Bajeshwari with knife but she admitted this suggestion that the accused Preetram wanted to marry her daughter and on her (deceased) refusal to marry, he killed the deceased with knife.

¶54

Tribhuwan Halba (PW-4) has stated that on the date of incident, he was working in kitchen-garden, at the relevant time, he heard Bajeshwari’s cries for help and came out of the garden into the street. At that time, accused Preetram’s brother Parmeshwar was also there. He has also stated that when he reached the spot, accused Preetram’s brother had caught hold him from behind with both hands then he (this witness) snatched the knife from the hands of accused. After snatching the knife, he hid it in his house. This witness has further stated that the time when he reached the spot, Bajeshwari was lying in bloodbath condition. Bajeshwari had injuries on her head and stomach and was bleeding and the accused Preetram had killed Bajeshwari and fled from the spot. He has also stated that thereafter he called 108

¶55

9

¶56

Ambulance. After sometime 108 Ambulance reached the spot but by that time, the deceased had died. He has also stated that the accused was taken to hospital by this ambulance itself as he had consumed poison.

¶57

Parmeshwar (PW-8) is the brother of accused. He has stated that on the date of incident when he was coming after dropping the buffalo in his house, he heard the sound of screaming and saw that deceased Bajeshwari was lying on the ground, the accused had knife in his hand, the accused was trying to kill himself, he caught his hand and snatched the knife and informed 108 vehicle. He has also stated that the deceased had injuries on her head. He picked up the deceased and took her to her house. Thereafter, 108 vehicle came and examined the girl but she was declared dead. This witness has also stated that the accused had consumed poison after killing the deceased, whom they took in the 108 ambulance to Gariyaband Govt. Hospital where he was admitted. He has also stated that the police had also come to village and gave notice for dead body panchanama under Ex.P-3. This witness has admitted his signature on ‘C to C’ part of inquest (Ex.P-4), spot map (Ex.P-6), notice (Ex.P-17) under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and seizure memo (Ex.P-13). In cross-examination, this witness has admitted this suggestion of defence that he had not seen the incident.

¶58

10

¶59

He has not seen the accused assaulting the deceased. He himself stated that the accused was standing there.

¶60

In this case, on the report of Gaid Kumar, merg (Ex.P-2) was recorded by Investigating Officer Nirbhay Singh (PW16). According to merg intimation (ExP-2), the date and time of incident is 10.09.2017 at 6.30 AM & the time and date of information given is 10.09.2017 at 8.30 AM & as per this merig intimation, accused Preetram assaulted the deceased with knife and she died instantaneous death. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the incident was immediately reported the police and named FIR was lodged against the accused.

¶61

Tribhuwan Halba (PW-4) and Parmeshwar (PW-8) have categorically deposed that they heard the noise of deceased and thereafter they rushed towards the spot immediately and saw accused Preetram holding knife in his hand. Parmeshwar (PW-8) had caught hold the accused from behind and Tribhuwan Halba (PW-4) snatched the knife from the hands of accused. Both these witnesses remain firmed to what has been stated in examination-in-chief, which clearly points towards the guilt of the accused/appellant. The evidence of these witnesses gets corroborated from the evidence of Smt. Tulsibai (PW-3), Hridaylal Bisen (PW-5), Birsen Shirmali (PW-6), Dharam

¶62

11

¶63

Bisen (PW-9), Oham (PW-10) and Dashrath (PW-11) that they heard that the accused Preetram assaulted the deceased and when they reached the spot they saw the body of deceased in bloodbath condition.

¶64

That apart, the police had also seized knife from Tribhuwan Halba (PW-4) under Ex.P-12. One bloodstained baniyan of accused was also seized from Parmeshwar (PW-8) vide seizure memo (Ex.P-13). And on the memorandum statement of the accused, one shirt stained with blood was seized under Ex.P.-11. The seized articles were sent to FSL for its chemical examination, and according to FSL report (Ex.P-42), presence of human blood was confirmed in knife, shirt and baniyan.

¶65

Close scrutiny of the evidence of prosecution witnesses makes it clear that upon hearing the cries of deceased, Tribuwan Halba (PW-4) and Parmeshwar (PW-8) immediately reached the place of occurrence, Parmeshwar (PW-8) caught hold the accused from behind by both hands and Tribuwan Halba (PW-4) snatched the knife from the hands of deceased. Other witnesses Smt. Tulsibai (PW-3), Hridaylal Bisen (PW-5), Birsen Shirmali (PW-6), Dharam Bisen (PW-9), Oham (PW-10) and Dashrath (PW-11) have also supported the case of the prosecution that they have seen the injuries of deceased and she was lying in

¶66

12

¶67

bloodbath condition and according to the evidence of Nirbhay Singh (PW-16) he registered the merg intimation (Ex.P-2) and FIR (Ex.P-34) against the accused. The defence has cross-examined these witnesses at length but has not been able to elicit anything in their crossexamination to discredit their testimonies especially to the fact that the accused has not caused injuries to the deceased and killed her. Further, according to the evidence of PW-8, after the incident, the accused tried to kill himself by consuming poison and he was taken in 108 ambulance which was called for taking the deceased for treatment. The accused wanted to marry with deceased but she refused to marry him then he assaulted the deceased. The prosecution has proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Bajeshwari died due to multiple injuries caused by the accused/appellant.

¶68

It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that even if the entire prosecution case is taken on its face value, the act of the accused/appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-II of IPC.

¶69

To sum up this argument of learned counsel for the appellant, we have carefully gone through the evidence of autopsy surgeon PW-14 and postmortem report (Ex.P-32), according to which, the deceased had sustained as many as

¶70

13

¶71

07 injuries :- (i) Injury on left thigh in the size of 2 x 4 cm; (ii) Injury between 11^th and 12^th rib; (iii) Injury below sternum bone; (iv) Injury on left index finger; (v) Injury on right side of spinal cord in the size of 2 x 2 cm; (vi) There was injury caused by sharp weapon on the left and back side of tight and (vii) Parietal and frontal bone was fracture in x shape. Thus, the aforesaid injuries sustained by the deceased makes it clear that the appellant was not only having intention but also knowledge that by his act the deceased may die, as such, the act of the appellant does not come under any Exception to Section 300 of IPC and the appellant is held guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC.

¶72

The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 302 of IPC and 27(1B) b and 27 of Arms Act. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warranting any interference by this Court. The learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting the appellant.

¶73

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶74

The Lower Court records along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶75

14

¶76

Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing his jail term, 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.

¶77

Sd/Sd/(Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶78

Digitally signedby VIJAYpekde BHARATRAO PEKDE

Preetram Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preetram Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Bek Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Deepika Goyal Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal

Shanti Rani Vs Amarjeet Singh

Union of India Vs Guha

Union of India Vs Dasarath

Union of India Vs Smt. Revati Karwa