Chattisgarh High Court
Krishna Sahu @ Lala Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 January, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved for Judgment on : 16/12/2021
Judgment Delivered on : 07/01/2022
Criminal Appeal No.341 of 2015
Krishna Sahu @ Lala Ram Sahu S/o Manglu Sahu Aged About 47 Years
R/o Village Dhour, Police Station Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Station House Officer, Police
Station- Patan, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. B. Madhava Rao & Mr. Suresh Kumar
Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, 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.
07/01/2022
Heard.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and
sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg,
C.G. in Sessions Case No.293 of 2013 on 31.01.2015 convicting the
appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. for causing intentional death of
deceased Shobhit Sahu and sentencing him with life imprisonment
along with fine of Rs.100/- and also convicting the appellant under
Section 307 of I.P.C. for causing injury to Hemuram (P.W.-3) with
intention to cause his death and sentencing him with rigorous
imprisonment of 10 years along with fine of Rs.100/-.
2. According to the prosecution case, the information was received in the
Police Station Utai regarding murder of Shobhit Sahu. I.A. Khairani
(P.W.-14) arrived on the spot. Complainant- Arun Kumar Sahu lodged
the unnumbered F.I.R. at 11:45 AM, that his brother Shobhit Sahu was
murdered by the appellant/accused by inflicting injury with a sickle.
Horilal Sahu (P.W.-06) is the eye witness of the incident. According to
prosecution, the appellant in attempt to cause death of Hemuram
(P.W.-03) inflicted one injury on his neck with sickle and he also
threatened Sarpanch- Roshni Mishra and her husband Rajkumar Mishra
to cause their death.
3. On the information given by Arun Kumar Sahu (P.W.-2), the Dehati
Nalishi (Ex.-P/25) was recorded on 25.07.2013 at 11:45 AM, numbered
F.I.R. (Ex.-21) was recorded and Merg Intimation (Ex.-P/20) was also
recorded by the Investigating Officer. Panchanama of the dead body
was conducted vide Ex.-P/3. Post-mortem of the dead body of the
deceased Shobhit Sahu was conducted by Dr. P. Akhtar (P.W.-10).
According to Post-mortem report (Ex.-P/18), the death of deceased-
Shobhit Sahu was caused and the same was homicidal in nature. The
case was further investigated, in which the seizure of articles were
made, statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. The seized articles that is the blood stained clothes of deceased
Shobhit Sahu and injured Hemu Ram Sapaha (P.W.-3), the blood
stained clothes of the appellant, the blood stained soil of the spot of
incident and the blood stains present on the sickle seized from the
appellant were sent for F.S.L. examination of which the report Ex.-P/27
was received mentioning the presence of human blood on all the articles
and the sickle. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against the appellant.
4. The appellant was charged with commission of offences under Section
302, 307 and 506 of I.P.C. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution examined in total 14 witnesses. The appellant/accused
was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the
incriminatory evidence present against him and stated that he is
innocent and has been falsely implicated. No other ground of defence
was taken and neither any witness was examined in defence. The
learned trial Court has by the impugned judgment acquitted the
appellant from charge under Section 506 of I.P.C., however, the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein-
before.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment
of conviction against the appellant is bad in law. The prosecution has
failed to bring evidence against the appellant of the nature beyond
reasonable doubt. The contradiction and omission present in the
evidence of the witnesses makes them unreliable, therefore, the
conviction against the appellant is not sustainable. Prayer has been
made to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant from all the charges
against him.
6. Learned State counsel opposes the grounds raised in the appeal and
also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is
submitted that the prosecution has brought the evidence against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is clearly proved that the
appellant is the person, who has caused death of the deceased Shobhit
Sahu and also caused fatal injury to the injured witness Hemu Ram
Sapaha (P.W.-3). Although the eye witness Horilal Sahu (P.W.-6) has not
supported the prosecution case but there is evidence of extra judicial
confession made by the appellant present in the statement of witnesses,
therefore, the conviction against the appellant under Section 302 and
307 of I.P.C. both are sustainable. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal
may be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
present on record.
8. Considered on the submissions, Horilal Sahu (P.W.-6) was examined as
eye witness, who has stated that he was told by Hemu Ram (P.W.-3)
about the assault made upon him by the appellant but he has not made
any statement regarding the assault on the deceased Shobhit Sahu by
the appellant for which he has been declared hostile. He has further
denied all the suggestions given by the prosecution regarding the
incident with respect to the deceased Shobhit Sahu.
9. Arun Kumar Sahu (P.W.-2), the brother of the deceased has stated that
one unknown person informed him that his brother has been murdered.
The witness went to the spot and found the dead body of his brother
Shobhit Sahu. The persons present on the spot informed him that
appellant had caused death of his brother. He was not present on the
spot when the deceased was assaulted and done to death.
10. Hemu Ram Sapaha (P.W.-3) has stated that on the date of incident,
appellant inflicted injury on deceased- Shobhit Sahu with a sickle and
caused his death. Subsequent to that, the appellant came and sat on
the platform in front of his house and he was making a statement that he
has murdered the deceased- Shobhit Sahu with a sickle and now it is
the turn of the witness himself. The appellant then inflicted one injury on
the witness, who blocked the sickle with his hand and suffered one
injury on the palm of the left hand. In cross-examination, he has
admitted that he was not present in the incident of death of deceased-
Shobhit Sahu, however, his statement regarding extra judicial
confession made by the appellant about causing death of the deceased-
Shobhit Sahu with a sickle has remained unchallenged in cross-
examination.
11. Hitendra Kumar (P.W.-4) is son of the Shobhit Sahu, who has given
statement as an eye witness stating that he saw the incident from about
the distance of 100 meter, in which the appellant inflicted injury from his
sickle on the deceased and fled from the spot. In cross-examination, this
witness was confronted with his previous statement Ex.-D/01. According
to which, the statement regarding witnessing the incident of death of
Shobhit Sahu appears to be an improved statement. Hence, this witness
cannot be relied upon.
12. Dushyant Sahu (P.W.-5) has been examined as an eye witness, who
has stated that in his presence, the appellant took out a sickle from his
clothes and inflicted injury on the neck of the deceased Shobhit Sahu,
which he has witnessed. In cross-examination, his statement has
remained unrebutted.
13. Permanand Sapaha (P.W.-7) has stated that he saw the appellant, who
was shouting that he will kill Hemu Sapaha and Maharaj Dau. The
appellant had one sickle in his hand. It was in his presence, the
appellant inflicted one injury on Hemu Sapaha, who is father of this
witness. His statement has also remained unrebutted in cross-
examination.
14. Dr. P. Akhtar (P.W.-10) has conducted the Post-mortem on the body of
the deceased- Shobhit Sahu. He stated about finding injuries as
follows:-
1. one incised wound present on the upper right side of the neck
which had cut the supraspinous ligament and extended till the
centre of the neck measuring 18X5 cm. having depth until the
vertibral column cutting the major vessels and nervous.
2. There was another incised wound present on the lower side of the
right side of the neck measuring 13X4 cm. having depth until the
bones cutting his mussels, nervous and major vessels.
3. Another incised wound was present on the parietal region
measuring 7X2 cm. and having depth until the bones.
4. Another incised wound was present on the maxillary part of right
side of the face measuring 6X2X2 cm. cutting the mussels.
5. One incised wound was present on the right frontal part of size 5X2
and bone deep.
6. One incised wound was present on chin measuring 5X3X2 cm.
which was bone deep.
7. One incised wound present in the middle of sub-mandibular area of
size 3X2X2 cm. of mussels deep.
8. One incised wound of size 2X1X1 cm. was present over the nose
cutting the nasal bone and cartilage.
9. One incised wound of size 5X3 cm. was present in the middle of the
right fore arm, which was bone deep.
10.One incised wound of size 6X3 cm. was present on the radial
aspect left forearm, which was bone deep.
11. One incised wound of size 7X4 cm. and muscles deep and cutting
the vessels was found on the palm of left hand extended till the
middle of the little finger.
12.One incised wound of size 4X3 cm. and bone deep was present on
the left anterior iliac crest.
13.one incised wound of size 4X2 cm and bone deep was present on
the left scapular region in the back of the deceased.
On the basis of these findings, Dr. P. Akhtar (P.W.-10)
stated that cause of the death of the deceased was hemorrhage which
had resulted from the injury caused to him and the nature of both was
homicidal (Ex.P-19). This statement regarding the presence of
injuries on the body of the deceased and also the nature of death has
remained unrebutted in cross-examination.
15. Dr. I.K. Wadhwani (P.W.-12) examined Hemu Ram Sapaha and found
one incised wound of 5X1X1 cm. on the palm of the left hand, one of
incised wound of size 3X1/2 cm. on the left index finger and that the
injured was making complaint of pain on the left side of his chest
regarding which report of Ex.P/22. This statement has also remained
unrebutted in cross-examination.
16. There is other evidence brought by the prosecution as circumstantial
evidence.
17. Investigation Officer I.A. Kherani (P.W.-14) has stated about the
investigation conducted by her. She has stated that she made seizure of
blood stained soil and plain soil, a black umbrella and slippers of the
deceased from the site vide Ex.-P/7. Seizure witness Hitendra Kumar
(P.W.-4) has supported this statement. She has further stated that she
has made seizure of the blood stained clothes worn by injured Hemu
Ram Sapaha vide seizure memo Ex.-P/8 This statement has also been
supported by the unrebutted statement of Hitendra Kumar (P.W.-4). She
has further stated that the cloth of the deceased were preserved by the
Doctor conducting post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Shobhit
Sahu, which were seized by seizure memo Ex.-P/16 which has been
supported by the statement of Constable Nandu Ram Dhruv (P.W.-8).
This witness has further stated that the appellant was arrested. There
were blood stains present on the clothes of the appellant, which were
seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/13. Witness Horilal (P.W.-6) has not
supported this statement of the Investigation Officer, however, the
statement of Investigation Officer I.A. Kherani (P.W.-14) is unrebutted on
this point and there is no reason given or any suggestion given to her in
cross-examination, according to which, it can be said that she is making
false statement. Hence, her statement regarding the seizure memo
Ex.P/13 is also a believable statement rest of her statements regarding
several seizures made are also believable.
18. I.A. Kherani (P.W.-14) has further stated that she made seizure of a
sickle from the appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/9. This investigative
procedure has been witnessed by Hitendra Kumar Sahu (P.W.-4) who
has made statement in support. Hence, the seizures made by the I.A.
Kherani (P.W.-14) have been very clearly proved by the prosecution
evidence. According to the evidence present, all these seized articles
were sent for F.S.L. examination. In F.S.L. report Ex.P-27, it is reported
that the articles, clothes of deceased Shobhit Sahu and injured witness
Hemu Ram, the clothes of the appellant, the blood stained soil of the
spot of incident and the sickle seized from the appellant had which
presence of human blood. The question was put to the appellant in his
examination under Section 313 in Cr.P.C. in this respect which was
answered in simple denial. However, no other explanation has been
given, therefore, the presence of human blood in the articles of seizure
as mentioned here-in-above is a strong circumstance made out against
the appellant connecting him with the incident that has occurred.
19. On making appreciation of all the evidence present, it is found that the
prosecution has very clearly proved that the deceased- Shobhit Sahu
was done to death by infliction of various incised wounds of his body
including the wounds present on the vital part of all his body that is
neck. All the wounds were inflicted by hard and sharp object regarding
which, there is statement of Dr. P. Akhtar (P.W.-10), who examined the
sickle seized by the Investigation Officer from appellant and reported in
Ex.P/19 that the injuries caused to the deceased and the injured could
have been caused by this. It was not challenged at all in his cross-
examination. The seizure of the sickle from the appellant vide Ex.P/9
has been proved by the prosecution.
20. There is eye witness statement of Dushyant Sahu (P.W.-5), which is
unrebutted and also the unrebutted statement of extra judicial
confession by Hemu Ram (P.W.-3). Rest of the witnesses namely Arun
Kumar (P.W.-2), Hitendra Kumar (P.W.-4), they saw the dead body of the
deceased immediately after the incident and they were informed that the
murderer of the deceased was this appellant is also relevant in support
of the other evidence of eye witness account and the extra judicial
confession. The circumstantial evidence of the F.S.L. report has been
already discussed here-in-above. Apart from that, there is no story of
defence from the appellant side as to who else may have caused death
of the deceased- Shobhit Sahu or who else may have attempted to
cause death of Hemu Ram (P.W.-3). Therefore, on the basis of these
discussions and looking to the quality of the evidence present in the
case, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court has not
committed any error in convicting the appellant for the offences under
Section 302 and 307 of I.P.C. and sentencing him accordingly as
mentioned here-in-before. Therefore, we find no substance present in
this appeal, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed, which is
dismissed.
21. With these observations, this Criminal Appeal stands disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Monika
