Chattisgarh High Court
Chetan Gond vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1660 of 2019
Chetan Gond son of late Mukund Gond, aged about 31
years, resident of VillageSaldih, Police Station
Sankra, DistrictMahasamund (CG)
Appellant
(In Jail)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House
Officer, Police StationSankra, DistrictMahasamund
(CG)
Respondent
For Appellant: Mr.J.K.Saxena, Advocate
For Respondent/State: Mr.Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
(16.11.2021)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC
is directed against the judgment dated 1.2.2010 passed
by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial
No.75/2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has
convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302
of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment
for life and fine of ₹1000/, in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.8.2009
at about 4.30 p.m. the appellant / accused murdered his
mother Balmati Gond (since deceased) by axe by
decapitating her head from rest of the body and thereby
committed the offence. Further case of the prosecution
is that on 29.8.2009 at about 4.30 p.m. Krishna Kumar
Sahu (PW1) lodged report to the Police Station Sankra
vide Ex.P1 and merg vide Ex.P2 that deceased Balmati
Gond was staying with her son Chetan Gond, the
appellant herein and she was maintaining herself by
begging and because of her house was damaged, she was
residing in the courtyard of her neighbour Suryanarayan
Vishal. On the said date i.e. on 29.8.2009 school
children started crying while going back to their home
that the appellant is killing her mother, then Krishna
Kumar Sahu (PW1) went to the house of the appellant
and saw the appellant having murdered his mother
Balmati Gond and decapitated her neck from rest of the
body keeping the head in one hand and bloodstained axe
on another hand, then Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW1) called
Sarpanch and Kotwar. The incident was witnessed by
Suraj Kumar Bhoi (PW5), pursuant to which, FIR under
Crime No.84/2009 for offence under Section 302 of the
IPC was registered against the appellant herein vide
Ex.P1. Spot map was prepared by the investigating
officer vide Ex.P3. Patwari also prepared spot map
vide Ex.P4. Memorandum statement of the accused /
appellant was recorded vide EX.P6 and on the basis of
said memorandum statement, iron axe was recovered from
him vide Ex.P7. Bloodstained soil and plain soil were
recovered from the spot vide Ex.P8. Inquest of the
dead body of deceased Balmati Gond was prepared vide
Ex.P11. All the articles were sent for chemical
examination vide Ex.P14. Dead body of deceased Balmati
Gond was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Center,
Basna, where Dr.Dinesh Kumar Sinha (PW4) conducted
postmortem of the body of deceased Balmati vide Ex.P9
and opined that death of deceased Balmati was homicidal
in nature.
3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section
161 of the CrPC. After completion of investigation,
chargesheet was filed against the appellant / accused
and the case was committed to the jurisdictional
Criminal Court for hearing in accordance with law for
offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant
herein abjured the guilt and entered into defence.
4. In order to bring home the abovestated offence, the
prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and
exhibited 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15, whereas the
accused / appellant has examined none in his defence.
5. The trial Court finding the death of deceased Balmati
Gond to be homicidal in nature and further relying upon
testimonies of eyewitnesses Suraj Kumr Bhoi (PW5) as
well as Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW1), by its judgment
dated 1.2.2010, convicted the appellant for offence
under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as
aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has
been preferred by the appellant / accused.
6. Mr.J.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant /
accused, would submit that there is no legally
admissible evidence on record to convict the appellant
for the aforesaid offence. The prosecution has failed
to bring home the offence under Section 302 of the IPC,
as such, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded
and sentence awarded deserve to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, Mr.Anmol Sharma, learned Panel
Lawyer for the respondent / State, would submit that
conviction of the appellant is based on testimonies of
eyewitnesses Suraj Kumar Bhoi (PW5) as well as Krishna
Kumar Sahu (PW1), as such, it is not the case where
conviction can be setaside, whereas it is the case
where death penalty ought to have been awarded by the
learned trial Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, considered their rival submissions made
hereinabove and also went through the records with
utmost circumspection.
9. The trial Court has held death of deceased Balmati Gond
to be homicidal in nature. Dr.Dinesh Kumar Sinha, who
has conducted postmortem, has been examined as PW4. He
has clearly stated that head of deceased Balmati Gond
was decapitated from main body of the deceased and
cause of death was due to decapitation of head from
rest of the body and death was homicidal in nature.
His report is Ex.P9. Considering the material
available on record, particularly taking in view the
medical evidence given by Dr.Dinesh Kumar Sinha (PW4),
we are of the opinion that death of deceased Balmati
was homicidal in nature, which has also not been
seriously disputed by learned counsel for the
appellant. Accordingly, we affirm the finding in that
regard rendered by the trial Court.
10. Admittedly, father of the appellant herein and husband
of the deceased was already dead on the date of
incident and the appellant and his mother Balmati both
were living together in the courtyard of Suryanarayan
Vishal. On the fateful day, school children while
returning back from school on 29.8.2009 saw that the
appellant was assaulting his mother Balmati Gond by
axe, they started shouting, then Suraj Kumar Bhoi
(PW5) reached to the spot and witnessed the incident.
In his statement before the Court, he has clearly
stated that on hearing cry by school children that the
appellant is killing his mother, he came out from his
house and saw that the appellant was killing his mother
by axe in courtyard of Suryanarayan where they were
staying. In para5 of crossexamination of Suraj Kumar
Bhoi PW5), he has maintained his statement that he has
witnessed the incident and as such, he has fully
supported the case of the prosecution.
11. Apart from this, Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW1), who also
reached to the spot immediately after the incident, has
also stated that the appellant after having killed his
mother was having head in one hand and bloodstained axe
on another hand and was moving in front of gali / in
front of house, then he called village kotwar and
reported the matter to the police station vide Ex.P1.
He has been subjected to extensive crossexamination on
behalf of the accused, but he has maintained that he
has seen the accused keeping his mother's head in one
hand and bloodstained axe on another hand and he made
report to the police, as such, the fact of killing his
mother by the appellant herein has duly been proved.
There is nothing on record on the basis of which
testimonies of eyewitnesses Krishna Kumar Sahu (PW1)
and Suraj Kumar Bhoi (PW5) can be disbelieved.
12. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties
and after going through the records and for the reasons
mentioned hereinabove, we are not inclined to setaside
the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence
awarded by learned Sessions Judge. We hereby affirm the
judgment of the trial Court.
13. Accordingly, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit
is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/ Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
B/
