Chattisgarh High Court
Devlal Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 88 of 2014
Devlal Singh, S/o Shobhit Ram, aged about 36 Years, R/o
Village Dwarikapuri, Thana Ramanujnagar, Distt. Surajpur,
C.G.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through PS In-Charge, Ramanujnagar,
Distt. - Surajpur C.G.
---- Respondent
For Appellant Mr. Sameer Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent/State Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
19.01.2023
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 02.12.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Surajpur, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.08/2013, whereby the
appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 302 of Rigorous Imprisonment for life
Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default
of payment of fine to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year
Under Section 326 of Rigorous Imprisonment for three
Indian Penal Code years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default of payment of fine to
further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months
Both sentences were directed to run concurrently
2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 30.05.2013 at 3:30
am at village Dwarkapur, police station Ramanujganj, the
appellant assaulted Ajay Singh Gond, aged about 5 years with
axe, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries and died
on the spot. The appellant also assaulted PW-3 Dashmet Bai,
grand mother of the deceased, who too suffered grievous
injuries. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant
used to call grand mother of the deceased/injured (PW-3) a
witch-doctor on account of which the appellant on 30.05.2013
at early morning entered the house of deceased-Ajay Singh
Gond where deceased along with his father (PW-1) and grand
mother- Dashmet Bai (PW-3) was sleeping. The appellant
taking the advantage that they are sleeping, assaulted upon
the deceased with axe by which he suffered grievous injuries
and thereafter when PW-3 Dashmet Bai tried to intervene, the
appellant also assaulted upon her by which she suffered
grievous injuries leading to amputation of little finger of left
hand. The matter was reported to the police by PW-1 Dhur
Singh at police station Ramanujganj and merg intimation was
registered. Thereafter, FIR Ex.P-2 was registered against the
appellant under Sections 302, 307 & 449 of Indian Penal
Code, the crime details form Ex.P-3 was prepared and the
panchnama was conducted vide Ex.P-11. On recommendation
of panchas, the dead body was sent for postmortem which
was conducted by PW-5 Dr. R.S. Singh, who has proved the
postmortem report Ex.P-8. According to postmortem report,
the cause of death is shock due to head injury and the death is
homicidal in nature. Pursuant to the memorandum of the
appellant (Ex.P-4), the blood stained axe was seized vide
Ex.P-5 and sent to FSL.
3. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted
before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was
committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in
accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his
guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not
committed the offence.
4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as
many as 6 witnesses and brought on record 14 documents
(Exs.P-1 to P-14).
5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary
evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused and
awarded sentence as mentioned herein-above against which
this appeal has been preferred by him questioning the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court
without appreciating the overall evidence available on record
has wrongly convicted the appellant by the impugned
judgment. He submits that PW-1 Dhur Singh, father of the
deceased and PW-3 Dashmet Bai, grand mother of the
deceased both are the related and interested eye-witnesses,
therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon to hold the
appellant guilty. Though the seizure has been made of axe but
no FSL report has been received even though the seized axe
was sent to FSL, therefore, recovery is of no use. He further
submits that in this case motive is also not proved. Therefore,
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
deserves to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the
charge.
7. Learned counsel for the State would support the impugned
judgment and submits that in view of the direct evidence of the
two eye-witnesses PW-1 Dhur Singh and PW-3 Dashmet Bai,
the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the
appellant by the impugned judgment which needs no
interference by this Court.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and went through
the records with utmost circumspection.
9. The first question for consideration would be whether the
death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which has
been answered by the trial Court in the affirmative relying upon
the postmortem report (Ex.P/8), proved by Dr. R.S. Singh
(PW-5). As such, we are of the considered opinion that the trial
Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the
deceased Ajay Singh Gond was homicidal in nature.
10. Now, the next question would be whether the appellant is
author of the crime for which the prosecution has relied upon
the testimony of PW-1 father of the deceased and PW-3
Dashmet Bai, grand mother of the deceased / injured. It is
undisputed that both the eye-witnesses are the father and
grand mother of the deceased. It is a well settled principle of
law that the testimony of the relative witnesses cannot be
thrown out at the outset but it has to be assessed with great
care and caution. In the present case, the incident happened in
the house early morning, when the deceased was sleeping
along with PW-1 Dhur Singh and PW-3 Dashmet Bai and
merely on the ground of PW-1 and PW-3 being the relatives of
the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded or
disbelieved but it has to be seen minutely.
11. PW-1 Dhur Singh, father of the deceased, has clearly stated
that on the date of incident, he along with his mother PW-3
Dashmet Bai and minor son Ajay Singh Gond, aged about 5
years / deceased were sleeping, the appellant entered the
house after pushing the door and assaulted his minor son with
a tangi by which he died on the spot. Thereafter, when his
mother tried to intervene, he also assaulted upon her, as a
result of which she suffered grievous injures and her left little
finger was amputated which has been proved by PW-5 Dr. R.S.
Singh and MLC report vide Ex.P-9. He further stated that the
appellant was caught hold by him and other villagers and the
matter was informed to the police but meanwhile, the appellant
managed to abscond from the place of incident. Though, he has
been subjected to certain length of cross-examination but
nothing has come out to establish that he is not the eye-witness
as he was the father of the minor son / deceased with whom the
deceased was sleeping. As such, he is an actual eye-witness to
the incident.
12. PW-3 Dashmet Bai, grand mother of the deceased was also
present and sleeping along with his son PW-1 Dhur Singh and
deceased. She has also corroborated the statement of PW-1
and stated that at the early morning, the appellant came to their
house armed with axe and assaulted upon his grand son with
axe. When she tried to intervene, appellant also assaulted her
by which her litter finger was cut and amputated. She further
stated that the appellant was caught hold by her son (PW-1
Dhur Singh) and other villagers and the matter was informed to
the police but the appellant managed to abscond from the place
of incident. As such, she is also the eye-witness to the incident
and nothing has been brought out to hold that she has not seen
the incident. She is also the injured witness and she has
suffered grievous injuries which was proved by PW-5 Dr. R.S.
Singh and MLC report Ex.P-9. Apart from this, pursuant to the
memorandum statement of the appellant, tangiya and iron rod
were seized vide Ex.P-5 and according to query report Ex.P-9
prepared by PW-5 Dr. R.S. Singh, the injuries sustained by the
deceased and PW-3 Dashmet Bai may be caused by the seized
weapon. Though the FSL report has not been brought on record
but in view of the direct evidence of PW-1 Dhur Singh and PW-
3 Dashmet Bai duly corroborated by the medical evidence, it is
proved that the appellant is the author of the crime.
13. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant
that motive is not proved in this case is concerned, it is a well
settled principle of law that where the facts are clear and there
is direct trustworthy evidence of the witnesses against the
accused regarding commission of crime, the motive part loses
its significance. (See Saddik alias Lalo Gulam Hussein
Shaikh and others vs State of Gujarat 1 & Bhim Singh and
another vs State of Uttarakhand 2). In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we are satisfied that the trial Court was fully justified
in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under
1 (2016) 10 SCC 663
2 (2015) 4 SCC 281
Section 302 of IPC.
14. Similarly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under
Section 326 of Indian Penal Code is well merited as the
grievous injury to the PW-3 Dashmet Bai has duly been proved
by her testimony and by the statement of PW-5 Dr. R.S. Singh
who has proved the MLC report Ex.P-9. On the basis of above
discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing
the appellant under Sections 302 and 326 of Indian Penal
Code.
15. In the result, the appeal being without any substance is liable
to be dismissed and is, accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Akhilesh
