Chattisgarh High Court
Shankar Ram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 January, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1847 of 2019
Shankar Ram, son of Chandru Ram, aged about 22 years, occupation
Cultivator, resident of Village Bhabri, Thana Jashpur, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate
For Respondent : Shri Sudeep Kumar Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Judgment on Board
Per Arvind Singh Chandel, J.
6.1.2022
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.4.2008
passed by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.87 of
2007, whereby the accused has been convicted under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code (two counts) and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life (two counts) with a direction to run the
sentences concurrently.
2. Names of the deceased persons are Etwaram and Phulmetbai.
Both were husband and wife and grand parents of the Appellant.
The date of incident is 22.4.2007 and time 8 p.m. According to the
case of prosecution, 8-10 days prior to the incident, father of the
Appellant had sustained a snake bite, due to which, the Appellant
was under a suspicion that both the deceased persons had
committed witchcraft on his father. On 22.4.2007 at 8 p.m., the
Appellant assaulted Etwaram with the help of a tangiya near a imli
tree. At that time, Phulmetbai, wife of Etwaram was also present
there. The incident was witnessed by Pushpa (PW2). She
immediately ran towards her house and there she told about the
incident to her cousin Sanjay (PW1) and his father Lalsuram
(PW3). Both Sanjay (PW1) and Lalsuram (PW3) running went to
the spot. There they saw that Etwaram was lying dead and
Phulmetbai was breathing her last. They informed about the
incident to Kotwar, Ward Panch and other villagers. When all these
persons reached the spot, they found that Phulmetbai had died.
First Information Report (Ex.P1) was lodged by Sanjay (PW1).
Inquest proceedings (Ex.P2 and P3) were conducted. Post mortem
examination over both the dead bodies were conducted by Dr. R.N.
Kerketta (PW4). Post mortem reports, Ex.P5 and P6 in respect of
Etwaram and Phulmetbai, respectively were submitted by him in
which he found that back of neck of Etwaram was cut in 7.5x5x3
cms. and his neck bone was also cut. He found that Phulmetbai
had sustained a cut injury on right maxillary region in 6x3x2 cms.
and she had also suffered a cut injury on left maxillary region in
6x3x2 cms. Her maxillary bone was found cut in both these
injuries. According to Dr. R.N. Kerketta (PW4), nature of both the
deaths was homicidal. During the course of investigation, spot map
was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On
completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against
the Appellant. The Trial Court framed charges against him.
3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 7
witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded
innocence. No witness was examined in his defence.
4. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial
Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in first
paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that without
there being clinching and sufficient evidence on record, the
Appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court. The conviction is
based only upon the sole testimony of eyewitness Pushpa (PW2).
In her cross-examination, she admitted the fact that the time of
incident was a dark night and, therefore, things were not clearly
visible. Hence, the conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable
only on the basis of the statement of Pushpa (PW2). It is further
submitted that there are material contradictions and omissions in
the statements of Pushpa (PW2) and other witnesses. The whole
prosecution case is doubtful.
6. Supporting the impugned judgment, Learned Counsel appearing for
the State submits that from the statement of Pushpa (PW2), it is
well established that it was the Appellant only who killed both the
deceased persons. Immediately after the incident, she informed
about the incident to Sanjay (PW1) and Lalsuram (PW3) and both
of them also immediately reached the spot and saw that Etwaram
had died and Phulmetbai was breathing her last. Pushpa (PW2),
the sole eyewitness is cousin of the Appellant. Sanjay (PW1) is
also cousin of the Appellant and Lalsuram (PW3) is real uncle of
the Appellant. There is nothing in their cross-examination on the
basis of which it could be said that they had any inimical terms with
the Appellant. Therefore, the statements of these three witnesses
are reliable and the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant.
7. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the statements of the witnesses and other evidence
available on record of the Trial Court with due care.
8. It is not in dispute that nature of both the deaths was homicidal. The
question is whether it was the Appellant only who caused these
homicidal deaths.
9. The entire prosecution case is based upon the statements of
Pushpa (PW2), the sole eyewitness, Sanjay (PW1) and Lalsuram
(PW3). Pushpa (PW2), in her Court statement, deposed that at the
time of incident, she was present near the imli tree, i.e., the place of
occurrence. At that time, she saw that the Appellant was assaulting
Etwaram with the help of a tangiya. At that time, Phulmetbai, wife
of Etwaram was also present there. This witness further deposed
that she went to her house and informed about the incident to
Sanjay (PW1) and Lalsuram (PW3). Though during her cross-
examination, in paragraph 6, she admitted that due to the time of
incident being a dark night things were not clearly visible to her,
when an explanation was sought from her by the Trial Court she
categorically deposed that it was the Appellant only who assaulted
Etwaram and she also admitted that she clearly identified the
Appellant at that time.
10. Corroborating the statement of Pushpa (PW2), Sanjay (PW1) and
Lalsuram (PW3) also deposed that on being told by Pushpa (PW2),
when they reached the spot, they found that Etwaram was lying
dead there and Phulmetbai was breathing her last. Till the villagers
could gather there, she also died. First Information Report (Ex.P1)
was also immediately lodged by Sanjay (PW1). All these three
witnesses are close relatives of the Appellant. They remained firm
during their cross-examination. There is nothing in their cross-
examination which could lead to infer that they had any inimical
terms with the Appellant. Therefore, we do not find any ground to
disbelieve their statements.
11. As regards motive, Sanjay (PW1), Lalsuram (PW3) and Ramsundar
(PW5) deposed that 8-10 days prior to the incident, father of the
Appellant had suffered a snake bite and, therefore, the Appellant
was under a suspicion that the deceased persons had committed
witchcraft. This statement of the three witnesses is not duly
rebutted during their cross-examination.
12. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that
deaths of Etwaram and Phulmetbai were homicidal in nature. From
the statements of sole eyewitness Pushpa (PW2), Sanjay (PW1)
and Lalsuram (PW3), it is also established that it was the Appellant
only who caused the homicidal deaths. He had a motive also for
committing the homicidal deaths. The injuries sustained by the
deceased persons, the weapon by which the assaults were made
and the parts of the bodies chosen for the assaults clearly establish
that intention of the Appellant was to commit murder of the
deceased persons. Thus, we are of considered view that the Trial
Court has rightly convicted the Appellant. The sentence imposed
upon him also does not warrant any interference.
13. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Gopal
