Suman Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 312 Chatt

                                                                                 AFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        Criminal Appeal No. 869 of 2015
      Suman Kashyap S/o Nadgu Kashyap Aged About 23 Years, Caste-
       Madiya, R/o Village Chitapur, Ghirgudapara, Police Station Darbha, Civil
       And Rev. Distt. Bastar C.G.
                                                            ---- Appellant
                                 Versus
      State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
       Darbha, Civil And Rev. Distt. Bastar, C.G.
                                                                 ---- Respondent

       For Appellant               :   Mr. C.K. Navrang, Advocate.
       For Respondent              :   Mrs. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. A.G.


   D.B.- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant &
               Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
                              Judgment on Board


Per R.C.S. Samant, J.

19/01/2022

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 30.04.2015 against the appellant in

Sessions Case No.03/2015 passed by the Third Additional Sessions

Judge, Bastar, Place- Jagdalpur, C.G. convicting the appellant for

commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him

with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, with default stipulations.

2. According to the prosecution case, on 27.11.2014 at about 07:30 P.M.,

the appellant assaulted the deceased- Sukra with an axe causing him

various injuries for the reason stating that the deceased was not giving

land to him. The deceased suffered various injuries and died on the

spot. Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) saw the appellant fleeing from the

spot. On the information given by Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7), morgue

intimation vide Ex.P/14 was recorded in the Police Station- Darbha.

Subsequent to which, F.I.R. Ex.P/13 was also lodged against the

present appellant registering the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The

police conducted the investigation in which inquest procedure was taken

up. The postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased by Dr.

Mahendra Prasad (P.W.-3), who opined in his postmortem report vide

Ex.P/8 that the death of the deceased was homicidal resulting from the

various injuries caused to him. The appellant was interrogated and his

memorandum statement Ex.P/1 was recorded. At the instance of the

appellant, an axe having blood stains on it, was seized from his

possession vide Ex.P/2. The blood stained soil and plain soil were

seized from the spot vide Ex.P/3 and a blood stained gamcha was also

seized from the spot vide Ex.P/7. The seized articles and the cloth of the

deceased preserved by the doctor conducting postmortem examination

were sent for F.S.L. Examination, report has been submitted by vide

Ex.P/22. The statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161

of Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against

the appellants.

3. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under

Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded not

guilty. The prosecution examined 08 witnesses. The appellant/accused

was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the

incriminating evidence against him, expressed his ignorance about the

prosecution, again he made a statement of being not guilty and that he

has been falsely implicated. No witness was examined in defence. The

learned trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution

and defense has passed the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned here-in-above.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction

against the appellant is erroneous as there had been no evidence of

prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) was

though examined as eye witness, but he has made admission in his

cross-examination that he had not seen appellant inflicting injury on the

deceased. The witness of extra-judicial confession Mahadeo Nag (P.W.-

1) has made statement in support of prosecution in examination in

Chief, but in cross-examination, he has stated that the appellant made a

statement that he does not know as to who has killed the deceased.

Therefore, this evidence was not sufficient to inspire any confidence.

Hence, the conviction against the appellant is not sustainable.

Therefore, It is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant

be acquitted of charge.

5. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions and submits that the

prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The

statement of Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) is relevant, as this witness has

stated that he saw the appellant, who had in his hands one axe, present

on the spot and fleeing immediately, thereafter, the deceased was found

in dead condition, having various injuries on his body. The admission

made by Mahadeo Nag (P.W.-1), in cross-examination has been further

clarified in the cross-examination and in the examinatino by Court itself,

that initially, the appellant denied having killed the deceased, but later on

he admitted and made statement that he had killed the deceased

because of land dispute. Therefore, this evidence is sufficient to inspire

confidence, hence, the conviction against the appellant is sustainable.

The appeal is not fit to be allowed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the documents

present on record.

7. Considered on the submissions. Clearly this case is not based on the

evidence of any eye witness, therefore, the scrutiny has to be made as

to whether the circumstances have been established by the prosecution

or not.

8. Budhram Kashyap (P.W.-7) is the key witness of this case, who has

stated that he was arriving home, he saw the appellant inflicting injuries

on the deceased with an axe. Seeing the witness, the appellant fled

from the spot and by that time, the deceased had died. This witness has

lodged the F.I.R. (Ex.P/13) and the morgue intimation (Ex.P/14). In

cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not see the appellant

inflicting injuries on the deceased, however, he saw the appellant

running away from the spot and he was carrying an axe. The adverse

suggestions given have been denied. This witness has admitted that

earlier, there was no complaint made to any forum regarding dispute of

land and his statement regarding seeing the appellant present on the

spot and carrying an axe and fleeing away is an unrebutted statement.

9. There is no other eye witness. Mahadeo Nag (P.W.-1) has stated that a

Panchayat meeting was held, in which the appellant by himself made a

statement that the deceased was not giving his share in the land

because of which, he has murdered him. It was subsequent to this, the

appellant was handed over to the police. In cross-examination, he has

made admission to one suggestion that the appellant made a statement

that he does not know, who has killed the deceased, but later on in the

cross-examination itself, he has made a clarificatory statement that

appellant had stated that deceased was elder brother of his father, who

was not giving the share from the ancestral land for construction of

house because of which he has killed him. The Court also has separately put questions to this witness, who then answered that initially

the appellant denied killing the deceased but later on, he made

statement before the Panchayat that he had killed the deceased

because of the land dispute.

10. A.S.I. Ramdev Sethia (P.W.-2) has made some investigation and

recorded the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P/1,

which has been supported by Mahadeo Nag (P.W.-1). He has stated that

at the instance of appellant and from his possession, an axe was

recovered and seized from his house. The axe had blood stains present

on it, seizure of this axe was made vide Ex.P/2, this has also been

supported by Mahadeo Nag (P.W.-1). The statement of A.S.I. Ramdev

Sethia (P.W.-2) has remained unrebutted in his cross examination.

11. Sub-Inspector, Durgesh Sharma (P.W.-8) has conducted the rest of the

investigation.

12. Dr. Mahendra Prasad (P.W.-3) conducted the Postmortem examination

of the deceased and stated about finding injuries as follows:-

 External Injuries on the body:-

1. One lacerated wound of size 8x3 cm. muscle deep was found

on the right side of the neck, which was caused by some sharp

object.

2. One lacerated wound of size 3x2 cm. having skin depth on the

cheek of the deceased.

3. Swelling of size 6x4 cm. Was found on the left parietal region of

the deceased.

 On internal examination:-

1. There was blood clot in the left parietal region of size 5x3 cm.

2. Trachea was traumatized and broken.

13. In his report Ex.P/8, he has opined that injuries caused to the deceased

were ante-mortem in nature, caused by blunt object as well as sharp

object and the death of the deceased was homicidal. This witness also

examined the axe, which was seized from the appellant vide Ex.P/2.

Vide Ex.P/9, this witness has described the dimensions of the axe and

the blood stains present on it and advised for F.S.L. examination of the

blood stains present on the Gamcha of the deceased and the blood

stained axe. There is no such statement present in the cross-

examination, on the basis of which it can be held, that the statement of

witness in examination-in-chief has been rebutted. The blood stained

articles were sent for F.S.L. examination regarding which the F.S.L.

report Ex.P/22 was received. This report mentions that the stains

present on the axe seized from the appellant and the stains present on

the Gamcha of the deceased, are the blood stains.

14. There is no need to consider on the rest of the evidence. On making

appreciation of the evidence present in the record and also considering

the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court in the impugned

judgment, we are of the view that the chain of circumstances in this

case has been completely proved by the prosecution. There is evidence

regarding motive of the appellant to cause death of the deceased. There

is evidence regarding the presence of the appellant on the spot of

incident, where the deceased was inflicted fatal injuries and his death

was caused. The appellant was seen carrying axe by Budhram Kashyap

(P.W.-7) and fleeing from the spot. Later on, the axe has been seized

from the possession of the appellant at his instance. Further, the F.S.L.

report Ex.P/22 also confirms presence of blood stains on the axe and

also on the cloth of the deceased. Therefore, the circumstances point the finger only against the appellant and there is no other defence

raised or parallel story brought forth for consideration that the incidence

of death of the deceased may be having a different story. Therefore, we

are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt and learned trial Court has not committed any

error in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Hence, this appeal is

dismissed.

15. Hence, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial

Court, this appeal is dismissed and disposed off.

             Sd/-                                                     Sd/-
         (R.C.S. Samant)                                      (Arvind Singh Chandel)
             Judge                                                   Judge
Monika