Chattisgarh High Court
Dadu @ Manraj vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 March, 2022
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal, Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1431 of 2018
Dadu @ Manraj Son of Jai Singh Gond, aged about 35 years,
resident of Village - Tendudand Thana Jhagrakhand, District-
Koriya (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant
(In Jail)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jhagrakhand,
Distrit Koriya (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
For Appellant: Mr.Arjun Singroul, Advocate
For Respondent/State: Mr.Sudeep Verma, Dy.G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Smt.Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
(28.3.2022)
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 judgment of conviction recorded for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2005') and sentence awarded for imprisonment for life and fine of ₹1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months and rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of ₹500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for five months 2 to him by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh by the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2007 in Sessions Trial No.51/2007.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.4.2007 at about 4 p.m. the appellant came into the house of Vishambhar and caused injuries to Fulkunwar Bai (since deceased) by iron chapad proclaiming her to be tonhi/witch and thereby caused her murder and committed the offence. It is admitted position on record that deceased Fulkunwar Bai was mother-in-law of Kamli Bai (PW-1), Shanti Bai (PW-7) and Parvati (PW-8). Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.4.2007 deceased Fulkunwar Bai was sitting in courtyard of her son Vishambhar (PW-5), at that time, the appellant armed with iron chapad came therein and proclaiming her to be tonhi/witch caused multiple injuries by iron chapad and thrown her dead body on road. At the instance of Shanti Bai (PW-7), dahati nalishi was registered vide Ex.P-11A and dehati merg intimation was also registered vide Ex.P-12A and thereafter FIR (Ex.P-11) was registered for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Inquest was conducted over the body of the deceased. Dead body of deceased Fulkunwar was sent for postmortem to Community Health Centre, Manendragarh, where Dr.S.N.Gupta (PW-10) conducted postmortem and found nine injuries on the body of the deceased and cause of death was syncope due to ante mortem injuries and death was homicidal in nature. His report is Ex.P-7. Bloodstained soil was recovered 3 from the spot. Bloodstained sari of the deceased was also seized. Pursuant to disclosure statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-3, iron chapad was seized vide Ex.P-4. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahendragarh, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Koriya (Baikunthpur), from where the First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh received the case on transfer for trial. 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 14 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents Exs.P-1 to P-18C. However, the appellant examined none in his defence and exhibited statement of Kamli as Ex.D-1.
4. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 11.10.2007, found the appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Act of 2005 and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred.
5. Mr.Arjun Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein, would submit that though the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence, yet the trial Court has convicted the 4 appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Act of 2005 by recording a finding, which is perverse to record as there is serious contradiction and omission in statements of Kamli Bai (PW-1), Dileep (PW-2) and Shanti Bai (PW-7), who are said to be eyewitnesses. He would further submit that statement of Dileep (PW-2) has been relied upon, whereas he is child witness and his statement is not reliable and he has not stated truth and therefore, his testimony ought not to have relied upon. He would also submit that though bloodstained iron chapad was seized from the appellant herein and it was sent to FSL for chemical examination, but report of chemical examination has not been proved and as such, conviction recorded and sentence awarded deserves to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr.Sudeep Verma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, would submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Act of 2005 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 Fulkunwar Bai was homicidal in nature. The trial Court after 5 taking into consideration the statement of Dr.S.N.Gupta (PW-10), who has conducted postmortem of FulKunwar Bai, has opined that death of deceased was homicidal in nature. Considering nine injuries suffered by the deceased all over her body and postmortem report Ex.P-7, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that death of deceased Fulkunwar Bai was homicidal in nature. We hereby affirm that finding.
9. Now, the question is whether, death was caused by the appellant herein. Conviction is mainly based on the statements of three eye-witnesses namely Kamli Bai (PW-1), Dileep (PW-2) and Shanti Bai (PW-7). Dileep (PW-2), who is grandson of deceased Fulkunwar Bai, has clearly stated before the Court that on the fateful day he was playing in the courtyard of his father's brother Vishambhar and his grandmother Fulkunwar Bai was also sitting there, at 4 to 4.30 p.m. the appellant came there armed with iron chapad and caused several injuries by that weapon, he was also threatened by the appellant herein, which he informed to his mother Shanti Bai (PW-7), aunt Kamli Bai (PW-1) and Parvati (PW-8). He has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but this witness has maintained his version that he has seen the incident. Kamli Bai (PW-1), who has been informed by Dileep (PW-2), has also stated that on being informed by Dileep (PW-2), she and Shanti Bai came to the spot and they have seen that the appellant was assaulting her mother-in-law by iron 6 chapad (sharp edged weapon) proclaiming that she was practicing witchcraft/tonhi. She has also maintained her version in her cross-examination. Similarly, Shanti Bai (PW-7) has stated that she was informed by his son Dileep that the appellant was assaulting his mother-in-law Fulkunwar Bai, she immediately rushed to the house of Vishambhar (PW-5) where she has seen that the appellant has taken his mother-in-law to his courtyard and caused injuries by iron chapad and Fulkunwar Bai died on the spot. In her cross-examination also, nothing has been extracted to disbelieve her testimony and to conclude that she has not seen the incident. Parvati (PW-8) has also stated that on being informed by Shanti Bai (PW-7) she has seen that the appellant was taking her mother-in-law Fulkunwar to his house and thereafter murdered her mother-in-law. As such, testimony of the aforesaid eyewitnesses clearly establishes that on the fateful day of 21.4.2007 the appellant entered into the house of Vishambhar where his mother Fulkunwar Bai was sitting and proclaiming her to be witch/tonhi, he caused nine injuries, which is apparent from the statement of Dr.S.N.Gupta (PW-10) as the appellant has assaulted Fulkunwar Bai by iron chapad, by which she has suffered nine injuries all over her body. Nature of injuries was bone deep and even bone was fractured, which was proved as per statement of Dr.S.N.Gupta (PW-10) and his report is Ex.P-7. Not only this, on the basis of memorandum statement vide Ex.P-3, bloodstained chapad was seized from the appellant 7 vide Ex.P-4, in which blood was found, which was sent to FSL for chemical examination, but FSL report was not brought by the prosecution. As such, on the basis of testimonies of Kamli Bai (PW-1), Dileep (PW-2), Shanti Bai (PW-7) and Parvati (PW-8), the trial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that it is the appellant who has caused murder of deceased Fulkunwar Bai by sharp edged weapon i.e. iron chapad by which the deceased suffered nine injuries all over the body. Said finding recorded by the trial Court is based on testimonies of four eyewitnesses, which cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to record. As such, the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant. As such, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court and sentenced as above. The trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant herein and further justified in awarding the above-stated sentence.
10. Accordingly, the criminal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
B/-