Chattisgarh High Court
Chamra @ Nani vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 January, 2023
Cr.A.No.170/2014
Page 1 of 5
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.170 of 2014
{Arising out of judgment dated 17-9-2013 in Sessions Trial No.115/2012
of the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur}
Chamra @ Nani, S/o Jhitruram, Caste Madia, Aged about 41 years,
Occupation Agriculturist/labour, R/o Vill. Keshapur, P.S. Dharbha, Distt.
Bastar (C.G.) Civil & Revenue Distt. Bastar
(In Custody)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Dharbha, Distt. Bastar (C.G.)
---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant: Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, Advocate.
For State / Respondent: -
Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.
Judgment On Board
(25-1-2023)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under
Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17-9-2013
passed in Sessions Trial No.115/2012 by the Sessions Judge,
Bastar at Jagdalpur, by which the appellant has been convicted
under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life (till death) & pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/-.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20-7-2012 at 6.30 p.m.
at Village Keshapur, Kotwar Para, Police Station Darbha, Distt.
Cr.A.No.170/2014
Bastar, the appellant assaulted Rukmani Bai by farsa - sharp-
edged weapon, by which she suffered injuries and died. Further
case of the prosecution is that the appellant used to suspect
Rukmani Bai of playing witchcraft and that she used to curse the
children, and previously, 2-3 days before the date of incident,
grand-daughter of elder brother of the appellant - Urmila died which
has further enhanced the suspicion of the appellant herein pursuant
to which on the fateful day and time, when deceased Rukmani Bai
was coming back to her house, after collecting water from the bore-
well, the appellant came from backside and assaulted her by tabbal
and absconded from the spot, which was witnessed by Kum.
Roshni (PW-1) - daughter of the deceased. On the report of
Kotwar Jhumuklal (PW-3), first information report Ex.P-2 was
registered against the appellant at Police Station Darbha and
morgue intimation Ex.P-3 was recorded. Inquest over the dead
body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-14 and dead body
was subjected to postmortem by Dr. S.S. Raj (PW-6) who proved
the postmortem report Ex.P-10 in which cause of death was stated
to be excessive bleeding and injuries to vital organs and nature of
death was stated to be homicidal. Pursuant to the memorandum
statement of the appellant Ex.P-8, Tangi - iron axe was seized vide
Ex.P-6 and other articles were also seized. Seized articles were
sent for chemical examination to the FSL, but no FSL report was
brought on record. Statements of the witnesses were recorded
under Section 161 of the CrPC.
3. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant
Cr.A.No.170/2014
for offence under Section 302 of the IPC before the jurisdictional
criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions, Bastar at Jagdalpur where the trial was conducted.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as
many as 9 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 20
documents Exs.P-1 to P-20. Defence has examined one witness
Sonsingh Kashyap (DW-1) in support of its case, however,
exhibited no document. Statement of the accused / appellant was
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he abjured the
guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication and claimed to be
tried.
5. The trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted
and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening
paragraph of this judgment against which he has preferred the
instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC.
6. Mr. Vikas A. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, would submit that the evidence of sole eyewitness Kum.
Roshni (PW-1), being daughter of the deceased, is not reliable and
conviction should not be rested only on the evidence of the sole
eyewitness who is not reliable witness. Therefore, the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set
aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
7. Mr. Afroz Khan, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/
respondent, would support the impugned judgment and submit that
there is no bar in convicting the accused on the basis of sole
Cr.A.No.170/2014
testimony of eyewitness which is reliable and which inspires
confidence and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the
record with utmost circumspection.
9. The first question whether the death of the deceased was homicidal
in nature has rightly been answered by the trial Court in affirmative
relying upon the statement of the medical officer Dr. S.S. Raj (PW-
6) who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-10, which is a pure
and simple finding of fact based on the evidence available on
record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we
hereby affirm the said finding.
10. Now, the question is, whether the appellant is the author of the
crime in question, which was also answered by the trial Court in
affirmative relying upon the statement of Kum. Roshni (PW-1).
Kum. Roshni (PW-1) is a child witness. She is the daughter of the
deceased and in her statement before the court, she has clearly
stated that the appellant has assaulted her mother by sitting on her
chest and cut the neck of her mother by tabbal, a sharp edged
weapon, which she has witnessed and she had also stated the time
4-5 p.m.. She had informed the matter to Sarpanch Ghasiya.
Though she has been subjected to some length of cross-
examination, but she was firm in stating that she has personally
witnessed the incident. Her statement is reliable and it inspires
confidence.
11. Apart from the oral testimony of Kum. Roshni (PW-1), pursuant to
Cr.A.No.170/2014
the memorandum statement of the appellant, bloodstained tangi
was seized from him vide Ex.P-6, though the same has been sent
for chemical analysis to the FSL, but no FSL report has been
brought on record, however, seizure of tangi has been proved by
Jhumuklal (PW-3).
12. As such, considering the statement of Kum. Roshni (PW-1) who
has clearly seen the appellant causing injury to the deceased by
sharp-edged weapon tangi (farsa), further considering that the
death of the deceased has been proved by the medical officer to be
homicidal in nature and that pursuant to the memorandum
statement of the appellant, tangi in question has been seized from
the possession of the appellant, the trial Court has rightly convicted
the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and
sentenced him to imprisonment for life & pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/-.
Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal, it deserves to
be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Soma
