Chattisgarh High Court
Shrawan Kumar Dugga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 February, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for Judgment on : 18/02/2022
Judgment Delivered on : 24/02/2022
Criminal Appeal No.549 of 2013
Shrawan Kumar Dugga S/o Parau @ Prabhu Ram Aged About 32 Years
R/o Village Parwi, Police Station- Bhanupratappur, Civil And Revenue
And District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station:-
Durgukondal, District- Kanker, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
D.B.- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant & Hon'ble
Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
CAV Judgment
Per R.C.S. Samant, J.
Heard.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
14.03.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, North Bastar Kanker,
District- Kanker, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.55/2011, convicting the
appellant for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and
sentencing him with life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1000/-
with default stipulations to undergo additional two months' rigorous
imprisonment, if the fine remains unpaid.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 06.11.2010 at about 06:30 PM,
the appellant stabbed the deceased- Ramdayal Kallo with a knife,
which resulted in fatal injury and the deceased died on the spot. The
incident was witnessed by Ku. Sandhaya Kallo (P.W.-9). One Jagat Ram
Dugga (P.W.-1) logged the morgue intimation (Ex.P/1) on 07.11.2010 in
Police Station- Durgkondal, District- Kanker, C.G. On his information,
F.I.R. (Ex.P/2) was also lodged against the appellant. The inquest
procedure was conducted in which Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P/4)
was prepared in presence of Panch witnesses and crime details form
(Ex.P/5) was also prepared. Seizure of blood stained soil and plain soil
was also made vide Ex.P/6. The dead body of the deceased was
subjected to autopsy. The Dr. A.K. Dhruw (P.W.-05) has conducted the
postmortem and opined in his report Ex.P/11 that the death of the
deceased was homicidal due to the stab bounds present on his body.
The appellant was apprehended and interrogated who after making
admission of the offence, made statement of discovery regarding
knife vide his memorandum statement (Ex.P/7). At the instance of the
appellant himself, the knife was recovered and seized from the spot
vide Ex.P/8. The clothes of the appellant having blood stains were also
seized vide Ex.P/9. The nails of both the hands of the appellant were
also cut and preserved which were seized vide Ex.P/10. The seized
knife was examined by Dr. A.K. Dhruv (P.W.-5) vide Ex.P/12 and he
opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased may have
been caused by this weapon. The appellant was also injured, who was
medically examined by Dr. Preeti Singh (P.W.-6) and the injury report is
prepared vide Ex.P/13. The clothes worn by the deceased were
preserved by the Doctor conducting the postmortem examination and
the same was seized vide Ex.P/14. A spot map was also prepared by
the Patwari vide Ex.P/16. The appellant was formally arrested vide
Ex.P/20. The seized articles were sent for F.S.L. Examination. The
report vide Ex.P/24, mentions presence of blood in the soil from the
spot of incident, on the shirt worn by the appellant, on the knife seized
from the appellant and on the clothes of the deceased. The statement
of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
concerned Court.
3. After the committal proceedings, the learned Sessions Judge, took
cognizance of the offence against the appellant. Charge was framed
under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant. The appellant denied
the charge and prayed for trial. The prosecution has examined 11
witnesses. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the
appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which
he denied all the incriminating evidence present against him making a
statement of his innocence and false implication. Opportunity was
sought for producing witnesses in defence, however, no witness was
examined by him in defence. Learned Sessions Judge after giving
opportunity of submitting final arguments to the prosecution and
defence has delivered the impugned judgment.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
conviction against the appellant is erroneous and bad in law. The
prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Court has placed reliance on
the evidence of Ku. Sandhya Kallo (P.W.-9), who is a witness of tender
age, therefore, her statement was not reliable. The memorandum
statement and seizure at the instance of the appellant was not proved
in the case, as the witnesses of this procedure had not supported the
prosecution. In the alternative, it is argued that there is evidence
present regarding presence of injuries on the body of appellant.
Hence, it is suggestive that the appellant had either exercised the right
to private defence or it was a case of sudden provocation given to the
appellant by assaulting upon him, therefore, it may be a case covered
under Section 304 (II) of I.P.C. Hence, the conviction against the
appellant is not sustainable.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the appellant
counsel and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt and there is no ground for interference in the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
present on record.
7. It appears to be no dispute raised from the appellant side that the
deceased- Ramdayal Kallo has died homicidal death. Dr. A.K. Dhruw
(P.W.-5) has reported in Ex.P/11 presence of seven stab bounds found
on the body of the deceased, which are as follows:-
(a) One stab wound measuring 2x1x3 inch deep was found below
the neck.
(b) One stab wound measuring 1x1.5 inch was found below the
clavicle bone.
(c) One stab wound measuring 2x1x3 inch deep was found 2 inch
below the left clavicle bone.
(d) One stab wound measuring 6x3x3 inch was found on right
chest near the nipple.
(e) One stab wound measuring 2x1x2.5 inch was found on chest
near the place of third rib.
(f) One stab wound measuring 2x1.5x6 inch was found 2 inch
below the left nipple.
(g) One tattered wound measuring 1x1x0.5 inch was found on
palm of the left hand.
8. The opinion was given that cause of death was excessive bleeding
from the injuries, which resulted in shock, therefore, the death was
homicidal.
9. It is a case of only one eye witness Ku. Sandhya Kallo (P.W.-9), who is
aged about 15 years, she has clearly stated that she witnessed the
appellant stabbing her uncle- Ramdayal Kallo (deceased) four to five
times, due to which he started bleeding. The witness raised the alarm
when other witnesses arrived on the spot, the appellant made an
escape. Her statement has remained unrebutted in her cross-
examination. All the adverse suggestions given to her have been
clearly denied.
10. Sanekar Ram (P.W.-2) is the witness of circumstance, who heard the
cries of the Ku. Sandhya Kallo (P.W.-9) and ran to the spot where he
saw the appellant fleeing away and it was at that time Ku. Sandhya
Kallo (P.W.-9) informed him that it was the appellant, who had stabbed
the deceased and ran away. He has remained firm on his statement in
cross-examination.
11. Jagatram Dugga (P.W.-1) has also stated about arriving on the spot
after hearing the cries of Ku. Sandhya Kallo (P.W.-9) and he also
attempted to chase and catch the appellant. He is the lodger of the
morgue intimation vide Ex.P/1 and F.I.R. vide Ex.P/2. There is no
specific challenge given to his statement in the cross-examination. It is
true that he is not the witness of the incident, in which deceased was
stabbed by the appellant, however, the evidence of Sanekar Ram (P.W.-
2) and Jagatram Dugga (P.W.-1) are circumstantial, who had
immediately arrived soon after the incident occurred and saw the
appellant who was running away from the spot showing the conduct of
the appellant.
12. Ramlal Uieky (P.W.-10) has also stated similar that hearing the cries, he
arrived the spot and saw the appellant running away from the spot.
13. Inspector D.K. Markam (P.W.-11) has recorded the memorandum
statement Ex.P/7 of the appellant, in which he stated about the
discovery of the knife. Subsequent to that, it was at his instance, the
knife was seized from the place where it was hidden on being
produced by the appellant himself vide Ex.P/8. His statement on this
point is totally unrebutted in cross-examination.
14. Pankuram (P.W.-3) has fully supported the I.O. D.K. Markam (P.W.-11).
D.K. Markam (P.W.-11) has further stated about the seizure of blood
stained soil and plain soil from the spot vide Ex.P/6. Seizure of blood
stained clothes of the appellant vide Ex.P/9. Seizure of the nails of the
appellant which were cut and preserved vide Ex.P/10 and the seizure
of the blood stained clothes of the deceased vide Ex.P/14. Pankuram
(P.W.-3) has supported the seizure of clothes of the appellant vide
Ex.P/9.
15. Nen Singh Tamrakar (P.W.-4) has supported the seizure of knife from
appellant vide Ex.P/8.
16. Constable Nandlal (P.W.-7) has stated about the seizure of the clothes
vide Ex.P/14, which were presented by him before the Investigating
Officer, therefore, the seizure of the articles as mentioned here-in-
above has been successfully proved by the prosecution. The seized
articles were sent for F.S.L. examination and the F.S.L. report vide
Ex.P/24 is present in the case, which mentions presence of blood on
the soil seized from the spot, on the shirt seized from the appellant,
on the knife seized from the appellant and also on the clothes of the
deceased, which is another evidence of circumstance, which was
needed to be explained by the appellant. The appellant in his
examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has not given any explanation
regarding the evidence of circumstances against him and there is no
specific statement regarding his defence except for that of denial of
the incriminating evidence present against him. The order sheets of
the trial Court shows that the appellant was granted a number of
opportunities for producing his witness in defence, but he could not
produce any witness because of which the Court proceeded to decide
the case, hence, the opportunity of defence was provided to the
appellant but he could not avail the same.
17. The ground raised in the appeal that the evidence of Ku. Sandhya Kallo
(P.W.-9) was not fit to be relied upon is baseless. There is no comment
of the learned trial Court regarding the competency of the witness Ku.
Sandhya Kallo (P.W.-9). Further, the age of this witness was about 15
years, at which stage a person can be understood to have sufficient
maturity and understanding to witness the thing and make statement
about it. Further, there is no reason present in the whole statement of
the Ku. Sandhya Kallo (P.W.-9) that she had any personal interest
against the appellant, hence, her statement is fully believable and
trustworthy.
18. On careful scrutiny of the whole evidence present on the record, it
appears to be clear that the incident in which the appellant stabbed
the deceased to death was witnessed by one eye witness Ku. Sandhya
Kallo (P.W.-9) and the circumstance in which the appellant was seen
fleeing from the spot has been witnessed by Jagatram Dugga (P.W.-1)
and Sanekar Ram (P.W.-2). The other circumstance regarding the
seizure of the articles from the appellant and the same being a
connecting evidence on the basis of F.S.L. report (Ex.P/24) is again a
strong circumstance against the appellant, therefore, the conclusion
drawn by the learned trial Court that it was the appellant, who had
caused death of the deceased caused intentional death of the
deceased appears to be an appropriate conclusion.
19. The ground of his defence and sudden provocation etc. have been
taken for the first time in this appeal. Although there is evidence that
the appellant was also injured and he was medically examined by Dr.
Preeti Singh (P.W.-6) and given the report vide Ex.P/13 mentioning the
presence of simple injuries on the body of the appellant, but no
questions were put to any of the witnesses of prosecution suggesting
any fight either with deceased or any other person or suggesting that
the appellant himself was assaulted by any person, apart from that no
evidence has been led in defence, neither the appellant made any such
statement in the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., therefore,
this ground raised is not fit to be considered at the present stage.
After making the close scrutiny of all the facts circumstances and
evidence present in the case, we are of the view that it is not a fit case
in which the impugned order should be interfered with. Therefore, the
present Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
20. With these observations, this Criminal Appeal stands disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Monika
