Chattisgarh High Court
Rovind @ Sameer Satnami vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 October, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 2015
Rovind @ Sameer Satnami, Aged about 20 years, S/o
Goverdhan Satnami R/o Village Gidpuri, Out Post Gidhpuri,
P.S. Pallari, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
---Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police
Station Pallari, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara,
Chhattisgarh.
---Respondent
For Appellant :- Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Advocate
For State :- Mr. Ishan Verma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Judgment on Board
31/10/2022
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has been
preferred by the appellant herein assailing the impugned
judgment dated 30/10/2014 (Annexure A/1) passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge Balodabazar, Distt.
Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Sessions Trial No. 04/2014
whereby he has been convicted for offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment
for life with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of
fine, he has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 50 days.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11/10/2013 at
about 03:00 PM at village Gidhpuri which comes within the
ambit of P.S. Pallari, the appellant herein assaulted Vidya
Kumari with a sickle and caused her death, thereby,
committing the offence in question.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that appellant had a love
affair with the deceased and on the date of the incident, at
about 03:00 PM, deceased Vidya Kumari, along with her
sister-in-law Yuvranibai (P.W.-2) and her sister Arti Banjare
(P.W.-3), was getting ready to visit Dongardevi Temple/the
fair organized therein but the appellant unauthorizedly
entered her house and asked the deceased not to go to the
said temple. Deceased Vidya Kumari refuted and asked the
appellant with what authority he was stopping her and
thereafter, the appellant, out of anger, dragged the deceased
to his house in the presence of Yuvranibai (P.W.-2) and Arti
Banjare (P.W.-3) and assaulted her with sickle and caused
grievous injuries on her neck due to which she died
instantaneously.
4. Yuvranibai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) informed
about the incident to Dwarikadas (P.W.-1), stepfather of
deceased Vidya Kumari, who reported the incident at Pallari
Police Station on the basis of which, merg intimation was
registered vide Ex. P/1 and first information report was
lodged against the appellant for offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC vide Ex. P/2. Summons were issued to
the witnesses vide Ex. P/7 and in their presence, inquest
was conducted vide Ex. P/8 pursuant to which the dead
body of deceased Vidya Kumari was subjected to
postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. B.S. Dhruv (P.W.-
7) and as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/10), cause of
death is said to be complication of haemorrhage shock as a
result of grievous incised wound, mode of death is said to be
asphyxia and the nature of death is said to be homicidal.
Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded twice
vide Exhibits P/18 and P/19 on the basis of which, iron
sickle and the clothes worn by the appellant at the time of
the incident have been seized from his possession vide Ex.
P/21 and appellant's personal diary as well as love letter
written by the deceased have also been seized from the
possession of the appellant vide Ex. P/22. From the spot,
plain soil, blood stained soil and a blood stained utensil
have been seized vide Ex. P/20. At the time of shav
panchnama, a love letter written by the appellant to the
deceased was recovered from the clothes of the deceased
vide Ex. P/9. All the seized articles were though sent for
chemical examination, but no FSL report has been brought
on record. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-
sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC
which was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing
and disposal in accordance with law. The appellant/accused
abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he
has falsely been implicated in the crime in question.
5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as
many as 11 witnesses and brought on record 33
documents. The statement of appellant/accused was
recorded wherein he denied guilt and exhibited the
statements of Dwarika Das, Smt. Yuvrani and Kumari Arti
as D/1 to D/3 in his defence.
6. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC mainly relying
upon the statements of eye-witnesses Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2)
and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3).
7. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant,
would submit that the testimony of eye-witnesses Yuvrani
bai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) are not reliable as
they are relative witnesses. He would further submit that
though recovery of blood stained sickle has been made from
the possession of the appellant pursuant to his
memorandum statement, but no FSL report has been
brought on record to prove that the blood found on the
sickle was that of the appellant, much less, it was human
blood, as such, there is no evidence available on record to
connect the appellant with the crime in question and
therefore, the instant appeal be allowed by acquitting the
appellant of the charge punishable under Section 302 of
IPC.
8. Per contra, Mr. Ishan Verma, learned State counsel, would
support the impugned judgment and submit that learned
trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant
for offence punishable under Section 302 relying upon the
statements of eye-witnesses Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and Arti
Banjare (P.W.-3) as though they have been subjected to
lengthy cross-examination, but they have remained
consistent and have supported the case of the prosecution,
as such, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and went
through the records with utmost circumspection.
10. The first question that requires consideration is whether the
death of deceased Vidya Kumari was homicidal in nature
and it has been answered in affirmative by the trial Court
relying upon the expert medical opinion of Dr. B.S. Dhruv
(P.W.-7), who has conducted postmortem as well as the
postmortem report (Ex. P/10) in which it has clearly been
recorded that cause of death is heamorrhagic shock as a
result of grievous incised wound and the nature of death is
homicidal. The said postmortem report (Ex. P/10) has been
proved by Dr. B.S. Dhruv (P.W.-7), who has clearly stated
before the Court, that there were grievous incised wounds
on the neck and right wrist of the deceased and she had
died due to asphyxia. He has further stated before the Court
that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. As
such, relying upon the postmortem report (Ex. P/10) as well
as the statement of Dr. B.S. Dhruv (P.W.-7), it can safely be
inferred that the death of deceased was indeed homicidal in
nature, more so, when it has also not been refuted by
learned counsel for the appellant. In that view of the matter,
we are of the considered opinion that learned trial Court
has rightly held that death of deceased Vidya Kumari was
homicidal in nature.
11. The next question for consideration is whether the appellant
is the perpetrator of the crime in question ?
12. Learned trial Court has also recorded an affirmative finding
in this regard finding the motive of offence duly proved by
the prosecution and relying upon the statements of eye-
witnesses Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3).
13. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant had a liking
towards the deceased and he had developed feelings for her
which is apparent from the personal diary of the appellant
containing love letters written by him to the deceased
(Article A) which has also been proved by Yuvrani bai (P.W.-
2), as such, learned trial Court has rightly held that
appellant had motive to commit the murder of the deceased.
14. Moreover, learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on
the basis of the statements of eye-witnesses Yuvrani bai
(P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3). Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) is
the sister-in-law of deceased Vidya Kumari and Arti Banjare
(P.W.-3) is the sister of deceased Vidya Kumari. Yuvrani bai
(P.W.-2) has clearly stated in her statement before the Court
that on the date of the incident, at about 03:00 PM, the
three of them were getting ready to visit Dongardevi Temple
near Balodabazar and meanwhile, the appellant, who stayed
in their neighborhood, came to their house and insisted the
deceased not to visit the temple. Deceased Vidya Kumari
refused and asked the appellant what authority he had to
ask her not to go to the temple to which, out of anger, the
appellant caught hold of the deceased and dragged her to
his house and after picking up the sickle kept in the
courtyard of his house, the appellant inflicted multiple
blows on the neck and wrist of the deceased as a result of
which the deceased suffered grievous injuries and died
instantaneously. Immediately thereafter, Yuvrani bai (P.W.-
2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3) informed about the incident to
Dwarikadas (P.W.-1), stepfather of deceased, who then
reported the matter at the Police Station. A careful perusal
of the statement of Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) would show that
she has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but
nothing has been extracted to say that she has not actually
seen the appellant assaulting the deceased rather she has
persistently mentioned that when the appellant dragged the
deceased to his house, she and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3)
followed them and they had seen the appellant assaulting
the deceased with sickle.
15. Arti Banjare (P.W.-3), sister of deceased Vidya Kumari, has
also made a similar statement that on the date of the
incident, she along with Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and the
deceased were getting ready to visit the Dongardevi
Temple/fair organized therein and at about 03:00
PM, the appellant came to their house and stopped the
deceased from visiting the said temple and when the
deceased refused to obey and asked him as to what
authority he had over her, the appellant angrily dragged the
deceased to his house and assaulted her with sickle on her
neck and hands due to which, she died on the spot. Arti
Banjare (P.W.-3) has also been cross-examined thoroughly,
but she has also remained consistent in her version and
has clearly stated that she has witnessed the appellant
committing the murder of the deceased.
16. As such, from the statements of Yuvrani Bai (P.W.-2) as well
as Arti Banjare (P.W.-3), it has clearly been established that
they are eye-witnesses to the incident and it is the appellant
who has assaulted the deceased with sickle and thereby,
caused her death. Moreover, pursuant to the memorandum
statement of the appellant vide Exhibits P/18 and P/19,
blood stained sickle has also been seized from his
possession vide Ex. P/21 though for the reasons best
known to the prosecution, no FSL report has been brought
on record to prove the blood found on the said sickle,
however, in view of the testimonies of two eye-witnesses
Yuvrani bai (P.W.-2) and Arti Banjare (P.W.-3), it cannot be
held that appellant is not the perpetrator of the crime in
question.
17. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that prosecution has been able to bring
home the offence against the appellant and learned trial
Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC by recording findings
which are neither perverse nor contrary to the record.
18. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge Judge
Harneet
