Chattisgarh High Court
Ghurthu Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 January, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, Sanjay Agrawal
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.930 of 2008
Ghurthu Ram S/o Manaram Aged about 32 years, caste Mahakul, R/o village
Kalaru Thana & Tah. Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.)
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.)
------Respondent
For Appellant: Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate.
For Respondent/State: Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble The Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal
Order on Board
Per Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice
31/01/2017
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.9/2008 dated 28.7.2008 whereby he has convicted the Appellant of having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and under Section 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and to undergo RI for 1 year under Section 5 of Chhattisgarh Tonahi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005.
2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that the accused Ghurthu Ram used to suspect that deceased Luchna Bai was engaging in witchcraft against him. He suspected that she was putting spells on him and therefore, on 10.7.2007 at 6.00 pm, he murdered Luchana Bai by beating her with 'danda'.
3. The undisputed facts are that on 10.07.2007, Luchana Bai along with her daughter-in-law namely Sita Bai was returning from the fields. Sita Bai went into the forest to collect fodder and fuel wood. When she returned after 2 15-20 minutes, she saw her mother-in-law Luchana Bai lying in a deep pit near Sagipitanala. Sita Bai then called her husband Kumar Yadav, PW-8. He saw that his mother was dead. Thereafter, Kumar Yadav, PW-8 went to the police station on the next day i.e. 11.7.2007 and lodged merg intimation, Exhibit P-11. In the merg intimation, he has stated the same facts and has also stated that he does not know how his mother died. Thereafter, the body of Luchana Bai was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. RN Kerketta, PW-7 who opined that the deceased had died due to attempt of throttling and fracture of her ribs and excessive bleeding. Despite the fact that the Doctor had opined that the death was homicidal in nature and the injuries were antemortem in nature, the police still did not record First Information Report. Thereafter, on 23.7.2007, First Information Report, Exhibit P-13 was registered with the police. Then, the statement of the witnesses were recorded and at this stage, two witnesses namely Ramjit Ram, PW-6 and Xavier Kujur, PW-9 suddenly appear.
4. After investigation, the accused were charged for having committed the offences aforesaid. After trial, they have been convicted and sentenced as above. Hence this Appeal.
5. The learned Trial Court has relied mainly on the statements of Ramjit Ram, PW-6 and Xavier Kujur, PW-9 in convicting the accused.
6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in this case, the prosecution has even failed to prove that the death was homicidal in nature. Her alternative submission is that the statements of Ramjit Ram, PW-6 and Xavier Kujur, PW-9 are totally unbelievable. They kept quiet for almost a month and their statements were recorded after the First Information Report itself was lodged 22 days after the occurrence and there is no explanation 3 why the witnesses kept silent for so many days.
7. In this case, we may make reference to the postmortem report, Exhibit P-10. The relevant portion of the report reads as under:-
"Dead body was lying on supine position. Rigor mortis present. Body worn blue print saree and blue colour blouse. Early putrifaction present. Blister present over abdomen and both arms. Eyes open both tongue protruded between teeth ad swallen. Both arms semiflexed and fingers semi clinched. Both legs extended. There is bluish black colour skin present over upper chest extending from sternum up to both side of the shoulder and neck and face is cynosed. All these injuries are antemortem nature."
"1. Membrane & Ribs: Both side first three ribs fracture.
2. Pleura: Healthy
3. Trachea & Wind Pipe: Congested and blood clots present
4. Right Lung: Rupture and pale.
5. Left Lung: Rupture and pale.
6. Pericardium: Healthy
7. Heart: Both chamber empty
8. Large Vessels: Healthy"
"Both side first three ribs fractured near sternum. There is extra vasation of blood over upper chest extending from sternum to both side of the shoulder ad neck front side. Blood clots present under the muscle of upper chest and neck. Injury is antemortem in nature."
8. The Doctor while appearing in witness box has also given a statement which is similar in nature. It would be pertinent to mention that the opinion of the Doctor that the cause of death was partly due to attempt of throttling, does not appear to be supported by any medical evidence. There is no ligature mark. There is no evidence to indicate attempt of throttling and we fail to understand on what basis the Doctor has said that there was an attempt of throttling. Neither in the postmortem report nor in the statement made in the 4 Court, the Doctor has been able to point out anything to indicate that there was any attempt to throttle Luchana Bai.
9. From the evidence of RN Kerkatta, PW-7, it is apparent that first three ribs of Luchana Bai had fractured. Unfortunately, these fractured ribs of Luchana Bai punctured both her lungs leading to internal hemorrhage in thoraxial region, which ultimately lead to her death. Throttling, in our view is not proved and now we have to decide whether the injuries caused to Luchana Bai present on the ribs were caused by the accused.
10. Admittedly, Sita Bai, the daughter-in-law of the deceased saw the body of her mother-in-law about 15-20 minutes after she had gone into the forest to collect fodder and fuel wood. Therefore, whatever happened, happened between these 15-20 minutes. When Sita Bai came back, she saw that her mother-in-law had fallen into a deep pit. She called her husband and when they examined Luchana Bai, she was found to be dead. The report with regard to the occurrence was lodged on the next day meaning thereby that the whole night, the family was at home. We are dealing with a case relating to a remote portion of the State. It is a tiny village. In small villages, each and every villager comes to know immediately when such a serious thing happens in the village. It would also be pertinent to mention here that Kumar Yadav, PW-8 had come to report the matter to the police along with other villagers. If there had been any eye-witnesses, they would have come immediately to the house of the deceased and informed her husband and son that they had seen the occurrence. That would be the natural human conduct. A person who sees his co-villager being murdered, will not keep silent for 20-22 days unless that person is under threat of life from the accused persons. In this case, after the merg intimation was lodged, the police came to the spot and even when the police came to the spot, neither 5 Ramjit Ram, PW-6 nor Xavier Kujur, PW-9 made any statement to the police. Their deposition is that they made statements to the police after 20-22 days when the police again came to the spot. Under law, statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C can be recorded only after the First Information Report has been lodged. Therefore, the statements of the witnesses must have been recorded after 23rd April, 2007.
11. The moot question which arises for consideration before us is whether we should believe the statements of these witnesses or not.
12. We shall first deal with the statement of Xavier Kujur, PW-9 who is the alleged eye-witness. He states that after planting paddy seedlings in his field, while returning home from Dipa, he saw accused Ghurthu Ram assaulting the deceased Luchana Bai with a 'danda'. He also states that the wife and daughter of Marianus were crossing the river at that time and they were going to village Kalaru. These two persons have not been examined by the prosecution. According to Xavier Kujur, PW-9, 2-3 days later, Benu Yadav, son of the deceased came to his house and on this occasion, he told Benu Yadav that he had seen his mother being assaulted by the accused Ghurthu Ram. He also states that after seeing the occurrence, he had not informed anybody else about the same. His explanation was that he was scared. However, there is no word in his evidence as to why he was scared. What was the cause of this fear that prevented him from telling anybody that he was a witness to a heinous offence of murder. If this witness is to be believed, he for the first time opened up after about 3 days when he informed Benu Yadav, the son of the deceased about the occurrence. This story is also not believable. If the son of the deceased had been informed that his mother had been murdered by accused Ghurthu Ram and that Xavier Kujur, PW-9 was a witness to the occurrence, Benu Yadav would have immediately gone 6 to the police and informed them about this fact. Benu Yadav has not been examined by the police and therefore, it is not possible for us to believe the statements of these witnesses. We cannot believe that the co-villagers whose agricultural land is next to the land of the deceased and who would be planting paddy together, did not go to the house of the deceased to condole her death and if this witness had seen the accused, as they want the Court to believe, then he would have definitely made a clear revelation of the same to the entire village especially the family members of the deceased.
13. Coming to the statement of Ramjit Ram, PW-6, this witness states that it was about sun set when from a distance of about 150-225 feet away, he saw the accused Ghurthu Ram running towards the forest from the pit on the road going from Kalaru to Jashpur. He crossed the pit and then went to his house. In the deep pit, he saw the dead body of the Luchana Bai. According to him, he went home and informed Xavier Kujur, PW-9 who lives opposite to his house about the fact that he had seen the dead body of Luchana Bai. This witness also states that Benu Yadav had informed him that the accused used to allege that Luchana Bai used to engage him in witchcraft. This portion of the statement is totally hear-say and Benu Yadav has not been examined. We cannot believe this statement of the witness. If this witness is to be believed, that means, after seeing the dead body of his neighbour lying in the pit, he just walked away. This is not normal. He would have stopped, shouted for help or called the neighbours. As pointed out by us above, Sita Bai came back within 15 minutes. Ramjit Ram, PW-6 reached the spot after Luchana Bai had died. Even if she was beaten for 5-7 minutes, it means that he did not stop at the spot even for 5 minutes. This is totally unnatural. This witness further states that he informed Xavier Kujur, PW-9 about the occurrence. But Xavier Kujur, Pw-9 does not say so. This is a material 7 contradiction between the statements. Furthermore, if this witness could go and inform Xavier Kujur, PW-9, why did he not inform the family members of the deceased that he had seen the accused running away from the spot.
14. For the reasons which we have given above with regard to Xavier Kujur, PW-9 we are disinclined to believe the statement of Ramjit Ram, PW-6. We discard the evidence of Ramjit Ram, PW-6 & Xavier Kujur, PW-9 as unreliable.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that the learned Trial Court totally mis-directed itself in relying upon the statements of these witnesses in convicting the accused. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Trial Court is set aside. The accused is acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bonds shall remain valid for a period of 6 months in terms of Section 437- A Cr.P.C.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Deepak Gupta) (Sanjay Agrawal)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Priya