Chattisgarh High Court
Sukhan Korwa vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 March, 2022
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal, Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.338 of 2015
Sukhan Korwa, S/o Shri Biphu Korwa, aged about 41 years,
Resident of Village - Karouli, Sarnapara, P.S. Dhourpur,
Revenue and Civil District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh )
---- Appellant
(In Jail)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dhourpur, District
Surguja (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
For Appellant: Mr.Santosh Bharat, Advocate
For Respondent/State: Ms Madhu Nisha Singh, Dy.A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Smt.Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
(29.3.2022)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/accused herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), in Sessions Trial No. 349/2011, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 6.6.2011 at 1-1.30 p.m. the appellant herein assaulted Tilak Bargah (since 2 deceased) by axe by which he suffered grievous injuries on his body and thereby committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. It is further case of the prosecution that on 6.6.2011 deceased Tilak Bargah was sitting along with Rajendra Singh (PW-4) and his mother Ratni Bai and talking to each other, between 1 to 1.30 p.m. the appellant herein reached on that place along with axe and assaulted Tilak Bargah by axe by which he fell down and thereafter the appellant also assaulted on his neck and absconded along with axe. On being shouted that the appellant has caused death of Tilak Bargah, the deceased mother Smt.Ruchi Bai (PW-5) and his wife Smt.Sonbai (PW-6) reached to the spot. Thereafter, Ruchi Bai came back to the house of Lashru Ram and informed that the appellant has caused murder of Tilak Bargarh, which was noticed by Lashru Ram. It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased had illicit relationship with the appellant's wife and on that account, the appellant had revengeful attitude with the deceased and he had quarreled with the deceased. On the report of Lashru Ram in the Police Station Dhourpur in Crime No.108/2011 (Ex.P-3), merg intimation (Ex.P-4) was registered and thereafter FIR was registered vide Ex.P-3 at the instance of Lashru Ram. Inquest was conducted. Bloodstained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-8. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Community Health Centre, Dhourpur, where Dr.K.P.Vishwakarma (PW-2) conducted postmortem and opined 3 that death of the deceased was due to hemorrhage shock and death was homicidal in nature. His report is Ex.P-2A. The appellant was taken into custody on 7.6.2011 vide Ex.P-11A, his memorandum statement was taken vide Ex.P-9 and pursuant to his memorandum, axe was recovered from the appellant vide Ex.P-10. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and FSL report is Ex.P-18 in which blood was found on axe recovered from the possession of the appellant herein. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Surguja (Ambikapur) for trial in accordance with law. The accused abjured the guilt and entered into defence.
3. In order to bring home the above-stated offence, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents Exs.P-1 to P-18. However, the appellant examined none in his defence and no document has been produced in his defence.
4. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.11.2012, convicted the appellant herein on the basis of testimony of eyewitness Rajendra Singh (PW-4) and further recovery of bloodstained axe was made on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant herein, in which blood was found by FSL and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of 4 this judgment, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred.
5. Mr.Santosh Bharat, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court has erred in believing the statement of Rajendra Singh (PW-4) as he is eyewitness, whereas he has not witnessed the incident. He would further submit that though the bloodstained axe was recovered, but in FSL it has not been proved that it was human blood and as such, the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set- aside.
6. On the other hand, Ms Madhu Nisha Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/State, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of evidence available on record and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.
8. The first question would be, whether death of deceased Tilak Bargah was homicidal in nature. The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence of Dr.K.P.Vishwakarma (PW-2) and postmortem report (Ex.P-2A) came to the conclusion that death of deceased Tilak Bargah was homicidal in nature, which has also not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the 5 appellant. Accordingly, we hold that death of Tilak Bargah was homicidal in nature and we do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the trial Court.
9. Now, the question is whether, death was caused by the appellant herein. Rajendra Singh (PW-4) is eyewitness. At the time of incident, he was sitting along with deceased Tilak Bargah near mango tree along with his mother Ratni Bai and were talking together, at that time, the appellant herein armed with axe reached there and assaulted Tilak Bargah from sharp edged side of axe by which he fell down and even thereafter the appellant assaulted on his neck and absconded from the spot. On being shouted, the deceased mother Smt.Ruchi Bai (PW-4) and his wife Smt.Sonbai (PW-5) reached to the spot, Lashru Ram (uncle of the deceased) also reached to the spot and Lashru Ram lodged merg intimation and FIR. He has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but in para-12 of his cross- examination, he has maintained his version that he has seen the incident and assault made by the appellant to the deceased. In para-14, he has clearly stated that even after the deceased fell down on the ground, then also the appellant made assault on neck of the deceased, which is duly supported by medical evidence (Ex.P-2A) as the deceased was found to have suffered injury on his neck in medical report. Smt.Ruchi Bai (PW-4) (mother of the deceased) and Smt.Sonbai (PW-6) (wife of the deceased) have also seen the accused absconding from the 6 place of incident along with axe. Apart from that, on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-9), bloodstained axe was seized from his possession vide Ex.P-10, which was sent to FSL for examination and in FSL report, blood was found on axe, though human blood was not found, but only on that ground, FSL report cannot be ignored.
10. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. On the basis of testimony of eyewitness Rajendra Singh (PW-4) and his ocular evidence duly supported by medical evidence and further supported by recovery of bloodstained axe in which blood was found in FSL examination, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the trial Court and we affirm the said finding.
11. Accordingly, the criminal appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
B/-