Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: evil eye in Ram Prasad @ Nanhe Guddoo vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2022Matching Fragments
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 5.12.2010 in between 9 a.m. to 14 p.m. the appellant caused murder of Ramgopal @ Gopi at village Matin in the bank of Matindai tank and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It is further case of the prosecution that the deceased had evil eye on the appellant's sister and he had administered some medical herbs to the appellant by which he has become weak and on that count the appellant on 5.12.2010 in between 9 a.m. to 14 p.m. caused murder of Ramgopal @ Gopi. The matter was reported by Kamlesh Kol (PW8) to the police station Bando, pursuant to which, dehati nalishi was registered vide Ex.P15 and on the basis of dehati nalishi, FIR was registered vide Ex.P14. Inquest was conducted in the presence of panchas. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Community Health Center, Podi Uproda, where Dr.G.S.Jatra (PW10) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P12 and opined that cause of death was neurogenic shock and haemorhagic shock due to rupture of spinal cord and bleeding from injured parts. After more than two months from the date of offence i.e. on 13.2.2011 memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P1 and on that basis, bloodstained axe was recovered from Dhourabar forest vide Ex.P2, which was sent to FSL after more than one month on 26.3.2011 (Ex.P22) and FSL report has been received after more than seven months on 28.10.2011 (not exhibited) in which in fullpaint and axe recovered from the appellant, blood was found, but whether it was human blood and blood group could not be ascertained though it was sent for Serologist for chemical examination. The appellant was chargesheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Korba, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, received the case on transfer for trial.
10. The next question for consideration would be, whether it is the appellant who has committed the offence in question and whether the the trial Court has rightly held that it is the appellant who has caused death of the deceased.
11. The trial Court has found the following three circumstances proved against the appellant:
(i) That, motive of offence is established as the deceased used to have had evil eye on the appellant's sister and has also administered some medical herbs by which the appellant was feeling impotent, which is apparent from his memorandum statement (Ex.P1).
Motive of the offence
13. The trial Court has found the motive of the appellant for the offence in question proved as the deceased was having evil eye on the appellant's sister and he has administered some medical herbs to the appellant which is evident from memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P1) in which the appellant has stated that the deceased few years prior to the date of incident has administered some medical herbs to him by which he has become weak and feeling himself like impotent and further stated that he used to have had evil eye on his sister. There is no other evidence available on record to hold so and no other piece of evidence has brought on record that the deceased has administered some medical herbs making the appellant impotent and further he used to have had evil eye on his sister.
17. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovestated judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that memorandum statement (Ex.P1) made by the accused that since deceased Ramgopal had administered some medical herbs to him and since he had evil eye on his sister, therefore, he has murdered Ramgopal by axe would be inadmissible in evidence and therefore, the trial Court could not have held the motive of the appellant to be proved on the basis of disclosure statement for commission of offence. Even otherwise, it is very weak piece of evidence. Accordingly, it is held that motive for commission of offence is not proved by the prosecution.