Chattisgarh High Court
Ramhari Sarthi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(3)MPHT23(CG)
Author: R.S. Garg
Bench: R.S. Garg
ORDER R.S. Garg, J.
1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the correctness, validity and propriety so also the findings recorded by the Court below in its judgment dated 31-1-1998 passed in Sessions Trial No. 289/1996 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Ramcharan and the appellant/accused Ramhari were cousins, in relation to certain ancestral properties and its division certain disputes were going on between the said parties. It is also stated by the prosecution that deceased Ramcharan used to abuse the accused and his family members. On 15th Feb., 1998, as alleged, at about 7 p.m. when the accused came to his house, he found that the deceased was abusing his family members. On this the accused armed with a 'Farsi' opened an assault on the deceased, caused him as many as 11 injuries, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. The prosecution further says that P.W. 2 Rajkumari, the grant daughter of the deceased after seeing the assault, ran away from the spot and came back to the spot, after about half an hour. The accused, according to the prosecution case, armed with the said 'Farsi' went to the house of P.W. 1 Ghanshyam Das, informed him that he had committed murder of the deceased. After receiving the information P.W. 1 Ghanshyam required the accused to go to the Police Station and lodge the report.
The accused appeared at the Police Station, lodged the report Ex. P-13 and appended his signatures to the said report. On 16-2-1998, the Investigating Officer came to the village and after reaching the spot made 'Panchnama' and seized the body. The body was sent for post-mortem. Certain statements of the witnesses were recorded on 16-2-1998. After completing the investigation, the Police filed the challan against the appellant. As the appellant denied the commission of offence, he was put to trial.
3. The learned Trial Court after recording the evidence and after giving proper opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence heard the parties and after hearing the parties, on being satisfied that the prosecution had successfully proved that the accused was the author of the injuries on the person of deceased, convicted and sentenced the accused, as referred to above.
4. Shri R.K. Jayaswal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the statements of P.W. 2 Rajkumari, the grand-daughter of the deceased, arc unnatural and as she had been projected rather concocted as an eye-witness, her statements cannot be relied upon. Regarding P.W. 1, Ghanshyam, he submits that the confessional statement made by the accused before said P.W. 1, appear to be unnatural and as such the statement of P.W. 1 could not be relied upon. Challenging the credibility of P.W. 2, Rajkumari, he submits that Rajkumari had clearly staled that the deceased was wearing one underwear only, but as the other witnesses and Panchnama of the body show that the deceased was wearing a vest (Banian), the statement of Rajkumari should be absolutely discarded. He also submits that though the accused has admitted lodgment of the First Information Report, but as the accused was in custody and was forced to append his signatures on Ex. P-13, the contents of Ex. P-13 should not be relied upon.
5. On the other hand, Shri Ranveer Singh, learned Government Advocate for the State submits that the statements of P.W. 2 Rajkumari, the grand-daughter, are but natural and after seeing the ghastly incident if she ran away from the spot and returned after some time, she cannot be disbelieved. Referring to the statement of P.W. 1, he submits that nothing has been brought on record to impeach the statement and credibility of P.W. 1, he submits that present is a case where the accused armed with a deadly weapon came to the house of the deceased, opened the assault and caused as many as 11 injuries to the deceased which led to the death of deceased. According to him, the Court below was absolutely justified in convicting the appellant and awarding the sentences.
6. Undisputedly, Ex. P-13 is the report which was lodged by the accused himself. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC Pg. 119 and Narayana Swami Vs. Emperor, AIR 1939, Privy Council 47, the confessional statements contained in the First Information Report, would not be admissible against the interest of the appellants. It is worth noting that the learned Trial Court has also not placed any reliance upon the contents of the FIR Ex. P-13 to hold the appellant guilty.
7. P.W. 2 Rajkumari is the grand-daughter of the deceased Ramcharan, She has stated before the Court that she was about 14 years of age, but the Court in its estimate found that she was about 12 years. Before her statements were recorded in the Court, the Court being alive to the situation had put certain questions to P.W. 2 Rajkumari to ascertain whether she could understand the questions and was wise enough to answer the said questions. After making the enquiry, the Court recorded that the witness was wise enough to understand the effect and import of the oath. But as she was about 12 years of age, oath was not administered to her.
8. P.W. 2 Rajkumari had clearly stated that she had raised the volume of Radio so that the abuses hurled by the accused could not be heard by the deceased. According to her, after hearing the abusive language, the deceased came out of the house and almost at the same time, the accused armed with a 'Farsi' came to the spot and opened the assault. She states that after seeing the said assault, she with her younger brother ran away from the spot. According to her, almost after half an hour, she came back and found the dead body of the deceased. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to her that, in fact, the deceased was abusing the accused. Not even a single question had been put to her in her cross-examination to show or suggest that the accused did not open the assault. She was cross-examined mainly on two points. First, as to what the accused was wearing and second as to what the deceased was wearing. In Paragraph 2 of her statement, she stated that at the time of assault, the deceased was wearing an underwear only and was not wearing any vest. For the accused, she stated that he was wearing a full pant and 'Kurta'. In Paragraph 3, it was suggested to her that because of the dark, she could not see anything. In reply to the Court question, she stated that at the place where the actual incident took place, there was no light, but she had seen the accused hitting her grand-father. In her further statement, she has stated that in the light of bulb, which was illuminating in her house, she could see the accused though the lane (Gali) was dark. In the last line of Paragraph 3, she staled that the accused hit her grand-father in the 'Chaura' (Varandah of the house). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Panchnama shows and, the witnesses have stated that the body of the deceased was wearing a vest, therefore, it must be presumed that P.W. 2 Rajkumari had not witnessed the incident.
9. We are not impressed by the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. The material question is not as to what the deceased was wearing. The question requiring consideration is as to who caused the injuries and whether it was the accused and the accused only who committed the crime of murder of the deceased. It was not disputed before us that the deceased had suffered as many as 11 cut injuries. The hand of the deceased was amputated. He had number of the injuries on his head. There was a cut mark of almost about 35 cms. on the neck of the deceased. Number of bones were cut. In these circumstances, the prosecution is required to show whether the accused was the author of the crime or the accused could give a dent to the prosecution case, and, therefore, he deserves to be acquitted.
10. At this stage, we will not proceed further with the statements of P.W. 2, but would like to take into consideration the statements of P.W. 1 Ghanshyamdas, According to Ghanshyamdas, on the fateful night, he heard certain abuses from the side of the house of deceased. Thereafter, he had gone to the village pond. At about 8 p.m. when he came out of his worshipping place, he saw the accused coming towards his house. According to him, the accused was wearing a 'Chaddi - Banian' (underwear and vest), he was holding a 'Farsa' in his hand. The accused informed him that he had committed murder of Ramcharan. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is material omission which amounts to contradiction in the statement of P.W. 1 Ghanshyam Das recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. therefore, this witness deserves to be disbelieved.
11. P.W. 1 Ghanshyam Das stated before the Court that the accused came to him, made a statement that he committed the murder of Ramcharan, the post man, and also informed the witness that "look the dead body was lying there". This particular piece of statement that "look there lies the dead body and I am going to Police Station for lodging the report" are not available in the case diary statement of P.W. 1. We fail to understand as to how non-disclosure of the facts or non-availability of this statement in 161 statements of P.W. 1 Ghanshyam Das would be an omission amounting to a contradiction. It is trite that after a lapse of sometime, because of forget fulness or because of the other attending circumstances, the witnesses start forgetting the fine details and after trying to recollect the entire incident, they try to reconstruct the things and start narrating the incident, in their own language. If P.W. 1 Ghanshyam in addition to what he had stated before the Police has stated something in the Court which does not run contrary to his earlier statements, then such a statement would not be an omission amounting to contradiction. In fact, the statements in the Court are elaborate and are further details of what was already stated by P.W. 1 Ghanshyamdas.
12. According to Ghanshyamdas, he required the accused to go to the Police Station and lodge the report. P.W. 9 S.P. Singh has clearly stated in his Court statements that the accused came to the Police Station and lodged a confessional report. We wish to make it clear that we are not taking into consideration the contents of the First Information Report, but we arc taking into consideration the fact of the lodgment of report by the accused. From the statements of P.W. 9 S.P. Singh, it would clearly appear that the accused lodged a report and appended his signatures to the said report. The fact that the report was lodged by the accused and he appended his signatures to the same, has been admitted by the accused in reply to question No. 45 put to the accused under 313 of Cr.P.C. P. W. 1 Ghanshyam, in fact, was fully corroborated by the chain of further circumstances. The confessional statement was made before him, he required the accused to go to the Police Station and lodge the report. The accused did go to the Police Station, did lodge the report and the fact that the accused lodged the report has been admitted by the accused. It cannot be disputed that after recording the First Information Report Ex. P-13, P.W. 9 S.P. Singh came to the village and started investigation. From the facts, seen in their true perspective, it would clearly emerge from the records that P.W. 1 Ghanshyamdas required the accused to go the Police Station, lodge the report and the accused did lodge the report, P.W. 9 S.P. Singh came to the village, prepared Panchnamas, took the dead-body in his custody and recorded statements of number of the witnesses. The attending circumstances do prove that P.W. 1 Ghanshyam is a truthful witness and the accused did make a confessional statement before him and under the instructions/directions of P.W. 1 Ghanshyam, the accused went to the Police Station and lodged some report.
13. Reverting back to the statements of P.W. 2 and the objection of the appellant that as P.W. 2 Rajkumari did not give the proper details about clothes of the deceased, she should be disbelieved; we are of the opinion that statement of P.W. 2 cannot be rejected, simply on this ground. The question for consideration before the Court is as to who committed the crime. The fine details as to what the deceased was wearing would not affect the credibility of the witnesses. Present is not a case where the witness, at the earliest opportunity, made certain statements and was traversing from the same during her Court statements. It appears that during the course of the cross-examination, a plain suggestion was made to her and the witness simply stated that her grand-father was not wearing a vest. We have already found and observed that not even a single question has been put to P.W. 2 Rajkumari regarding the assault. In the cross-examination, certain immaterial questions were asked. In our opinion, the statements of P.W. 2 are reliable and the Court below was not unjustified in placing its reliance on the statement of P.W. 2.
14. P.W. 3 Tiharu has stated in the Court that he was informed by P.W. 1 Ghanshyam that the accused had made a confessional statement before him. P.W. 4 Ramsharan Patel also stales that P.W. 1 Ghanshyam had come to his house shouting that the accused Ramhari had committed murder of Ramcharan. The conduct of P.W. 1 Ghanshyam, at this stage would assume importance. Immediately after receiving the information from the accused that he committed murder of Ramcharan, he started informing every body and in fact, was shouting in the village that the accused informed P.W. 1 Ghanshyam that the accused had committed murder of Ramcharan.
15. P.W. 5 Bhagwat Singh is a witness to the seizure of 'Farsi'. P.W. 6 Durga Prasad is also a witness to the seizure. Similarly, P.W. 7 Darasram Pekru is a witness, who according to his statements, had prepared the spot map. P.W. 8 Dr. Prakash Bhale Rao, had examined the body of the deceased and had conducted the autopsy. According to his report, the deceased had suffered as many as 11 cut injuries. The injuries were on the face, neck, arms and other parts of the body. The right arm was amputated and the deceased had suffered, as already found, a cut injury of 35 cm., on the neck of the deceased. The bones underneath were cut, almost every vital part of the body was cut.
16. P.W. 9 S.P. Singh after recording the first information report, went to the spot, took the body in his custody prepared various Panchnamas, seized the stained and ordinary earth from the house of the deceased. Thereafter, recorded the statements of the witnesses. He was asked as to why the accused was not taken in custody on 15th itself on which the witness said that though the accused had made a confessional report, but as he was required to make investigation, he did not take the accused in custody. We do not find anything unnatural in his statements.
17. After going through the complete records and taking into consideration, the arguments raised by counsel for the parties, we are unable to hold that the Court below was unjustified in recording the guilt of the accused. Further, giving our anxious consideration to the statements of eye-witness, the statement of person before whom the confessional statements were made and the other attending circumstances, we are also of the opinion that it was the accused who committed murder of deceased Ramcharan.
18. We find no reason to interfere. The appeal deserves to and is accordingly dismissed.
19. Criminal Appeal dismissed.