Chattisgarh High Court
Gita Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2012
Gita Ram Sahu S/o Meghram Sahu, Aged about 28
years, R/o Village Bhathli Khurd (Dilwaparat),
Police Station Jarhagaon, Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House
Officer, Police Station Jarhagaon, Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate
For State : Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Judgment on Board
01/08/2022
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC
emanates from the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 18/07/2012 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 55/2011 whereby learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli has convicted
the appellant for offence punishable under Section
302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment
and fine of Rs. 2000/, in default of payment of
fine additional R.I. for one year.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
20/09/2011 at about 10:00 AM at village
Bhatlikhurd, P.S. Jarhagaon, the appellant herein
assaulted one Suresh Sahu S/o Lalji Sahu, aged
about 13 years, by an axe due to which he suffered
greivous injuries on his head and neck and died
instantaneously and the appellant thereby,
committed the aforesaid offence.
3. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that
Lalji Sahu (P.W.1), father of deceased Suresh
Sahu, had illicit relationship with the wife of the
appellant and he had taken her to Agra and resided
there as husband and wife and on the that premise,
on the fateful day of 20/09/2011 at about 10:00 AM,
Suresh Sahu was going to school along with two
other students namely Dilharan Sahu (P.W.8) and
Lalit Sahu (P.W.9) and as soon as they reached the
main road outside of the village near the field of
Gore Sahu, the appellant, who was hiding behind a
mango tree, came out armed with an axe and
assaulted Suresh Sahu on his neck and head by which
he suffered grievous injuries in the vital part of
the body and died instantaneously and thereafter,
the appellant absconded immediately. The eye
witnesses to the incident namely Dilharan Sahu
(P.W.8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.9) informed about the
incident to Ramji Sahu (P.W.7) who registered merg
intimation vide (Ex. P/12) and thereafter lodged
FIR against the appellant for offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC vide Ex. P/13. Inquest was
conducted vide Ex. P/5 and summons were issued to
the witnesses vide Ex. P/6 and thereafter, the dead
body of deceased Suresh Sahu was sent for
postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Suresh Ratre
(Ex. P/12). The postmortem report has been filed as
Ex. P/3 in which cause of death has been recorded
as coma due to head injury and nature of death has
been recorded as homidical. Pursuant thereof,
memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded
vide Ex. P/1 and the broken bait of the axe was
seized vide Ex. P/2. From the spot, plain soil as
well as blood stained soil, broken axe and cycle of
Suresh Sahu have been seized vide Ex. P/8 and P/9
and the seized articles were sent for chemical
examination but no FSL report has been brought on
record. After recording the statements of the
witnesses and after due investigation, the
appellant/accused was chargesheeted for offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was
committed to the Court of Session for hearing and
disposal in accordance with law. The
appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered
into defence.
4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution
examined as many as 10 witnesses and brought into
record 17 documents. Statement of the
appellant/accused was recorded under Section 313 of
CrPC wherein he denied guilt but examined none in
his defence.
5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence on record, finding the
death of deceased Suresh Sahu to be homicidal in
nature and further finding the appellant to be the
author of the crime relying upon the testimony of
eye witnesses Dilharan Sahu (P.W.8) and Lalit Sahu
(P.W.9) and recovery of axe pursuant to memorandum
statement of the appellant, proceeded to convict
him for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC
and sentenced him as aforesaid which has been
called in question by way of this appeal.
6. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the
appellant, would submit that trial Court has erred
in convicting the appellant for offence punishable
under Section 302 of IPC relying upon the testimony
of Dilharan Sahu (P.W.8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.9)
as they have not witnessed the incident and it is a
case of false implication as the father of Suresh
Sahu namely Lalji Sahu (P.W.1) had an illicit
relationship with the wife of the appellant, as
such, the impugned judgment be set aside and the
appellant be acquitted of the charge levelled
against him.
7. Per Contra, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel,
would submit that appellant had strong motive to
murder Suresh Sahu, son of Lalji Sahu (P.W.1) as
Lalji Sahu (P.W.1) had an illicit relationship
with his wife and the incident has been witnessed
by two students namely Dilharan Sahu (P.W.8) and
Lalit Sahu (P.W.9) who were going to the school
with the deceased while the appellant committed his
murder and moreover, pursuant to the memorandum
statement of the appellant vide Ex. P/1, broken axe
as well as its wooden bait has also been seized
vide Ex. P/2 and P/8, as such, the instant appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein
above and went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
9. The first question for consideration would be
whether the death of deceased Suresh Sahu was
homicidal in nature ?
10. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative
finding with regard to this question on the basis
of postmortem report (Ex. P/3) wherein Dr. Suresh
Ratre (P.W.3), who has conducted postmortem, has
clearly stated that the cause of death is coma due
to head injury and the death of deceased was
homicidal in nature. Moreover, the fact that the
death of deceased Suresh Sahu was homicidal in
nature has also not been seriously disputed by
learned counsel for the appellant. As such, after
hearing learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the postmortem report (Ex. P/3) as
well as going through the evidence of Dr. Suresh
Ratre (P.W.3), we are satisfied that learned trial
Court has rightly held the death of deceased Suresh
Sahu to be homicidal in nature. We hereby affirm
the said finding recorded by the trial Court.
11.Now, the question for consideration is whether the
appellant is the author of the crime and whether
the trial Court has rightly convicted him for
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC ?
12.First of all, learned trial Court has held that
appellant had strong motive to cause the death of
Suresh Sahu, son of Lalji Sahu (P.W.1).
Admittedly, it has been proved by Lalji Sahu (P.W.
1) as well as Bhuwan Lal (P.W.6) that father of
the deceased, Lalji Sahu (P.W.1) had kept the wife
of the appellant and he took her to Agra and
resided there like a husband and wife on account of
which the appellant was holding a grudge by which
he intended to cause the death of the deceased. The
entire evidence on record would show that on the
fateful day, deceased Suresh Sahu was going to
school along with two other students namely
Dilharan Sahu (P.W.8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.9) and
when they reached the main road outside of the
village near the field of Gore Sahu, the appellant,
who was hiding behind a mango tree, attacked the
deceased with an axe and made 67 blows on his head
as well as neck due to which he suffered grievous
injuries and as opined by Dr. Suresh Ratre (P.W.
3), due to coma because of head injury, he died on
the spot.
13.Dilharan Sahu (P.W.8), aged about 13 years, has
clearly stated in his statement before the Court
that he and Lalit Sahu (P.W.8) were going to
school along with the deceased on the fateful day
on their bicycles. He was riding alone on his
bicycle whereas deceased Suresh Sahu and Lalit Sahu
(P.W.9) were riding another bicycle. When they
reached near the field of Gorelal, the appellant
who had been hiding behind a mango tree, came out
with an axe and caused 89 blows on the head of the
deceased. While hitting the deceased, the bait of
the axe had also been broken by the appellant. The
deceased suffered grievous injuries and fell on the
ground and Dilharan Sahu (P.W.8) ran to his home
and informed about the incident to his father Ramji
Sahu (P.W.7). In his crossexamination, he has
also stated Lalji Sahu (P.W.1) has kept the wife
of the appellant. Similarly, Lalit Sahu (P.W.9)
has supported the statement of Dilharan Sahu (P.W.
8) and though these two witnesses have been
subjected to crossexamination to some extent but
nothing has been brought out to prove that they
have not seen the appellant causing the death of
deceased Suresh Sahu. As such, it is firmly
established from the testimony of Dilharan Sahu
(P.W.8) and Lalit Sahu (P.W.9) that it is the
appellant who is the author of the crime.
14.Moreover, pursuant to the memorandum statement of
the appellant vide Ex. P/1, at first broken bait of
the axe has been seized vide Ex. P/2 and
thereafter, recovery of the axe (tangi) has also
been made vide Ex. P/8 and though memorandum
witness Kishor Kumar (P.W.2) has not supported the
case of the prosecution, but the Investigating
Officer namely B. Kujur (P.W.10) has proved the
same. Therefore, from the testimony of eye
witnesses Dilharan Sahu (P.W.8) and Lalit Sahu
(P.W.9) as well as from the memorandum and
seizure, it has been proved that appellant is
indeed the author of the crime. As such, we are of
the considered opinion that prosecution has proved
the offence beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of
ocular as well as circumstantial evidence and
learned trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant for offence punishable under Section 302
of IPC.
15.Accordingly, this criminal appeal, being devoid of
merit, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/ Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay S. Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Harneet
