Ramesh Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1403 Chatt

                                                                         NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                       Criminal Appeal No.878 of 2018

                    Judgment Reserved on :      28.2.2022
                    Judgment Delivered on :     17.3.2022

Ramesh Singh Gond, son of Lagan Singh Gond, aged about 40 years,
resident of Village Ramakachar, Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
                                                                  ---- Appellant
                                    versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
                                                                --- Respondent


For Appellant              :       Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent             :       Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate



            Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                               C.A.V. JUDGMENT

Per Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.10.2012

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba

in Sessions Trial No.59 of 2011, whereby the Appellant has been

convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 302 of the Imprisonment for Life and fine Indian Penal Code of Rs.500 with default stipulation

2. Deceased Sumitrabai was wife of the Appellant. They had no child.

On 7.5.2011 at 2:45 p.m., brother of the Appellant, namely, PW5

Ganesh was at his house. At that time, his daughter PW6 Samrat

informed him that dead body of Sumitrabai was lying down inside

her badi (fence). PW5 Ganesh along with villagers reached the

spot. There they saw that Sumitrabai was lying there. She had

suffered injury on neck and the Appellant was not present at the

house. At about 5-6 p.m., when the Appellant returned home, at

that time, on being asked by PW5 Ganesh, he made a confessional

statement that he committed the murder of Sumitrabai. The

incident was also witnessed by PW3 Radhabai and other villagers.

Next day on 8.5.2011, PW5 Ganesh lodged First Information

Report (Ex.P8). Inquest proceeding (Ex.P2) of the dead body was

conducted. Post mortem examination on the dead body was

conducted by PW8 Dr. Jitendra Singh Porte on 9.5.2011 in which

he found following two injuries:

(1) Chopped lacerated wound of 15x5x7 cms. below neck and

(2) Chopped lacerated wound of 9x5x6 cms. on left side of neck.

It was opined by him that cause of death was haemorrhagic shock

due to excessive bleeding and the nature of death was homicidal.

Post mortem report is Ex.P9. During the course of investigation,

on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex.P3) of the Appellant,

1 tangiya (axe) was seized vide Ex.P4. Plain soil and blood

stained soil were recovered and seized from the spot.

Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was

filed against the Appellant. The Trial Court framed charge against

him.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10

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 defence.

4. On completion of the trial, 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 argued that the Trial

Court has wrongly convicted the Appellant. There are material

contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses.

The Appellant and the deceased were husband and wife and there

was no motive present on the part of the Appellant to commit

murder of his wife. Therefore, the conviction is not sustainable.

First Information Report has also been lodged after 1 day of the

incident, but the delay has not been properly explained. Seizure

witness of the axe has also not supported the case of the

prosecution. Therefore, in totality, the Trial Court has wrongly

convicted the Appellant.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposed the arguments

advanced by Learned Counsel for the Appellant and supported the

impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

7. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the record of the Trial Court, gone through the statements

and other evidence minutely.

8. Lodger of the FIR (Ex.P8), i.e., PW5 Ganesh, who is brother of the

Appellant, deposed that his daughter PW6 Samrat informed him

that dead boy of Sumitrabai was lying in the badi (fence) of the

Appellant. Then he reached there along with other villagers. This

witness has categorically stated that though he did not see the

incident, when he asked about the incident from the Appellant he

admitted his guilt. In his cross-examination, in paragraph 7, this

witness again stated that on being asked, the Appellant admitted

his guilt. PW6 Samrat, daughter of PW5 Ganesh, corroborating the

statement of PW5 Ganesh, deposed that when she saw the dead

body of Sumitrabai, she immediately informed her father Ganesh in

this regard.

9. PW1 Sammilal, Sarpanch of the village deposed that on being

informed by PW5 Ganesh, he reached the spot. At that time, dead

body of Sumitrabai was lying in the badi and at that time the

Appellant was also present there. This witness further deposed

that later on 1 axe was seized from the Appellant.

10. PW3 Radhabai is the eyewitness of the case. She deposed that at

the time of incident, she was taking bath near hand-pump. She

saw that the Appellant assaulted the deceased with the help of axe

twice and due to which the deceased sustained injuries on neck.

Though this witness admitted the fact that the relation between her

family and the Appellant is not cordial, she remained firm on the

point that the Appellant assaulted the deceased in front of her with

the help of axe.

11. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that the

dead body of the deceased was found inside the badi (fence) of the

Appellant's house. As stated by PW1 Sammilal, when he reached

the spot, the Appellant was present there. Real brother of the

Appellant, i.e., PW5 Ganesh was also firm on the point that the

Appellant had made an extra judicial confession before him and

confessed his guilt. PW3 Radhabai, the sole eyewitness of the

case has also supported the case of the prosecution. She has

categorically deposed that the Appellant assaulted on the neck of

the deceased with the help of axe twice in her front. Though there

are some contradictions in her statement, they are not material.

Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is

established that the homicidal death of the deceased was caused

by the Appellant himself.

12. Looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased and considering

the fact that the assault was made with the help of axe and vital

part of the body, i.e., neck was chosen for the assault, in our

considered view, the case of the Appellant does not fall within any

of the Exceptions of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The sentence imposed upon the Appellant is also just and proper

and does not warrant any interference.

13. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.

                            Sd/-                                Sd/-

              (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)          (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                         Judge                                 Judge

Gopal