Supreme Court of India
Budhuram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 September, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2012 SC 586
Author: Ranjan Gogoi
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, P. Sathasivam
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1323 of 2008
BUDHURAM … Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
RANJAN GOGOI, J
The appellant who has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for life by the learned trial court
seeks to challenge the order of affirmation passed by the High Court of
Chhattisgarh by means of the present appeal.
2. The relevant facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset:
According to the prosecution, on 1.8.1998 the accused-appellant had
attacked his wife Shantibai in his own house with the backside of an axe
resulting in her death. In the next morning, PW 2 (Ramchandra) informed PW
5 (Bandhanram), who was the Sarpanch of the village, that the wife of the
accused was not to be found. Thereafter, along with some other persons PW
2 and PW 5 had inquired from the accused-appellant the whereabouts of his
wife. According to the prosecution, initially, the accused had disclosed
that his wife had gone to her sister’s place but subsequently, on
insistence, the accused disclosed that he had committed the murder of his
wife by attacking her with an axe and that he had thrown the dead body in
the Dhawraghat Nala. It is the further case of the prosecution that the
accused took PW 2, PW 5 and the other persons to the place where he had
thrown the dead body and that the same was recovered from the spot pointed
out by the accused. Thereafter, PW 2 lodged the report of the incident in
the Police Station at Kamleshwarpur at 9.00 PM on 2.8.1998, on receipt of
which a case was registered and investigation was undertaken by PW 4
(Ranjit Ekka), Sub-Inspector of Police. In the course of investigation,
the police visited the house of the accused and seized therefrom the broken
bangles of the deceased, plain soil and bloodstained earth as well as some
blood stained clothes of the deceased. Furthermore, on the basis of the
statement made by the accused, the police recovered an axe from the house
of the accused and also a T-shirt belonging to the accused which was also
bloodstained. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which
confirmed injuries on the front side of the head caused by a blunt weapon.
The recovered articles were also sent for chemical examination, the report
of which confirmed the presence of human blood.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid materials the accused was tried for the
offence of murder and was found guilty by the learned trial court. The
aforesaid conviction and sentence has been affirmed in appeal by the High
Court. Aggrieved, the appellant has instituted the present appeal.
4. We heard Sh. Naresh Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae and Sh. Atul Jha,
learned counsel for the State. We have carefully considered the
contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the
evidence and materials on record.
5. PW 1, Dr. Vedprakash Patel had conducted the post-mortem of the
deceased, Shantibai, in the course of which he found two lacerated wounds
on the right side of the head. There were some other injuries on the
head of the deceased. According to PW 1, all the injuries were caused by
a hard and blunt weapon and the same were sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course. PW 2 (Ramchander Yadav) had deposed that he was
informed by one Baburam that the accused-appellant had killed his wife
Shantibai, whereafter, PW 2 went to the house of the accused. On being
asked about his wife the accused had informed PW 2 that he had killed her
and thrown her dead body in the Dhawraghat Nala. According to PW 2, the
accused had also informed him that he had killed his wife in his house.
PW 2 had further deposed that he found blood scattered all over in a room
of the house of the accused. Thereafter, according to PW 2, he had
informed PW 5 (Bandhanram), who is the Sarpanch of the village, about
the incident and along with PW 5 and some other persons they had gone to
the Dhawraghat Nala from where they recovered the dead body of the
deceased, Shantibai, as pointed out by the accused. PW 2 had further
deposed that the accused had killed his first wife in July 1986 and that
he had just come out of jail after serving the sentence in connection
with the said offence. PW 3, who is the sister-in-law of the accused,
did not support the prosecution case. However, a reading of the evidence
of PW 3 discloses that the death of Shantibai had occurred a day after
the husband of PW 3 had died and soon after the cremation of her husband
had taken place. A reading of the evidence of the said witness also
discloses that at the time of cremation of her husband the deceased was
present in her house. PW 4 is the Investigating Officer of the case who
had deposed with regard to the recovery of the broken bangles and blood
stained clothes of the deceased from the house; the taking of samples of
bloodstained earth and plain soil from the same place as well as the
recovery of an axe from the house of the accused and a bloodstained T-
shirt of the accused from the Dhawraghat Nala. PW 4 had also deposed
that the accused had admitted carrying the dead body of his wife from his
house to the Dhawraghat Nala. PW 5 is the Sarpanch of the village whose
deposition is on lines, similar to that of PW 2. Both PW 2 and PW 5, in
their cross-examination, had denied the suggestions put on behalf of the
defence that they had previous enmity with the accused.
6. The above recital of the core of the evidence tendered by the
prosecution witnesses in the present case would go to show that there
are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and that the prosecution has
sought to bring home the guilt of the accused on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. PW 2 and PW 5 have proved and established the
extra-judicial confessions made by the accused before them to the effect
that he had killed his wife and had thrown the dead body in the
Dhawraghat Nala. The aforesaid piece of evidence is corroborated by the
recovery of the dead body from the Dhawraghat Nala which was witnessed
amongst others by PW 2 and PW 5. From the evidence of PW 2 it clearly
appears that the accused had admitted that he had killed his wife in his
house whereas from the evidence of PW 4 it transpires that the accused
had admitted carrying the dead body of his wife from the house to
Dhawraghat Nala. PW 2 had deposed that on going to the room of the
accused where the crime was committed he saw blood scattered all over in
the room. The evidence of PW 2 in this regard stands corroborated by the
evidence of PW 4 (the Investigating Officer) who had deposed that
bloodstained earth and the bloodstained clothes belonging to the deceased
were recovered from the place of occurrence. In addition to the above,
the prosecution has established that, at the instance of the accused, an
axe (Tangi) was recovered from the house of the accused and a
bloodstained T-shirt of the accused was recovered from the Dhawraghat
Nala. The evidence of PW 1 (the doctor who had performed the post-mortem
of the deceased) as well as his opinion dated 13.8.1998 (Exhibit P-3)
clearly establishes that the fatal injuries found on the body of the
deceased were capable of being caused by the blunt side of the axe
(Tangi) which was sent to him for his opinion. The presence of human
blood in the specimens of earth, clothes etc. sent for forensic
examination also stands established by the evidence adduced by the
prosecution.
7. The law relating to proof of a criminal charge by means of
circumstantial evidence would hardly require any reiteration, save and
except that the incriminating circumstances against the accused, on being
proved, must be capable of pointing to only one direction and to no
other, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed
the crime. If the proved circumstances are capable of admitting any
other conclusion inconsistent with the guilt of the accused the accused
must have the benefit of the same.
8. In the present case the circumstances that the prosecution had
succeeded in proving beyond all reasonable doubt, in our considered view,
are not only highly incriminating but, read together, the said
circumstances constitute a complete chain of events which unerringly
point to the culpability of the accused. No other conclusion save and
except it is the accused who had committed the crime can be reached on
the proved and established circumstances of the case. We, therefore, do
not find any reason to doubt the correctness of the view taken by the
learned trial court as well as by the High Court.
9. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the High
Court.
…………………………………J.
[P. SATHASIVAM]
………………………………..J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
New Delhi,
September 20, 2012
-----------------------
9