Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 853 (PAT)

Chaltu Rishi @ Chalittar Rishi v. State Of Bihar

2000-07-10

M.L.VISA, NARAYAN ROY

body2000
Judgment Narayan Roy and M.L.Visa JJ. 1. We have heard counsel for the parties. 2. Appellant no. 1 Chaltu Rishi alias Chalittar Rishi has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Sant Ram Rishi alias Hathia Rishi and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant no. 2 Chunni Rishi has been convicted under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 28.12.1990 at about 8 p.m. while the informant P.W. 1 was cooking food, Mathia Kumari and her mother Kumudia, wife of appellant Chaltu Rishi were hurling abuses on her in respect of committing theft of paddy from the Khambhar of one Kedar Choudhary. This infuriated the informant P.W. 1 and she came out of her house and indulged in quarrel with them. On Halla the deceased Sant Ram Rishi, husband of the informant came there and tried to pacify his wife and Mathia and Kumudia and when there was no end of the matter, the appellants who were warming themselves in the Angan near the Ghura all of a sudden came there. Appellant Chunni Rishi caught hold of the deceased from behind and appellant Chaltu Rishi pierced Garhail, a sharp cutting weapon on the left side of the chest of the deceased as a result of which Sant Ram fell down and on halla Chhedi Rishi, father of the deceased, Sukhdeo Rishi, brother-in-law of the deceased came there and immediately they took him on a Thela for treatment to a doctor at Semapur where ultimately he was declared dead. P.W. 1 immediately thereafter lodged a Fardbeyan (Ext. 1) before the P.W. 13, the Police Officer of Semapur Police outpost at 10.30 P.M. on the same day. 4. On the basis of the Fardbeyan (Ext. 1) a formal F.I.R. was drawn up (Exht. 5) and a case under section 302 of the I.P.C. was instituted against the appellants. After due investigation, the appellants were sent up for trial and ultimately they were found guilty in the trial and they were convicted and sentenced as indicated above. 5. The defence of the appellants is total denial of the occurrence and a plea of false implication. 6. Prosecution, in all, examined 13 witnesses in support of its case whereas defence has also examined two witnesses. 5. The defence of the appellants is total denial of the occurrence and a plea of false implication. 6. Prosecution, in all, examined 13 witnesses in support of its case whereas defence has also examined two witnesses. Out of P.Ws, P.W. 2 Jhunia Devi, P.W. 9 Sukani Devi, P.W 10 Chota Chedi Rishi and P.W. 11 Punia Devi had been tendered, P.W. 1 Bimla Devi is the informant. P.W. 3 Rannu Rishi is a witness of seizure of blood. P.W. 4 is a witness to the extent that he had seen the deceased being taken away on a Thela. However, he has not said anything as to under what circumstances the deceased was killed. P.W. 5 Chhedi Rishi is the father of the deceased. P.W. 6 Patel Kumar Singh is a formal witness who has proved the Fardbeyan (Exht. 1). P.W. 7 Mohsin Ali is also a formal witness of seizure of blood and Garhail allegedly recovered from the house of Chaltu Rishi. P.W. 8 Sukhdeo Rishi is a witness to the extent that he had also seen the deceased on the road side and the family members were found weeping. P.W. 12 is Dr. Krishna Kumar Singh, who held autopsy over the dead body whereas P.W. 13 Sachchidanand Choudhary is the Investigating Officer of the case. 7. The learned trial court on the basis of evidence, held that Chunni Rishi acted in furtherance of common intention of both himself and Chaltu Rishi and committed murder intentionally causing the death of Sant Ram Rishi and accordingly, held them guilty for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. We have scrutinised the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail. The whole case hinges upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5, 12 and 13. 9. P.W. 1, wife of the deceased in her evidence, has supported the prosecution version of the case as disclosed in the Fardbeyan (Exht. 1). She has categorically stated in her evidence that on the fateful night while she and Mathia Devi and her mother were quarrelling over theft of paddy from the Khambhar of one Kedar Choudhary, her husband, the deceased, came there and rather tried to pacify them. 1). She has categorically stated in her evidence that on the fateful night while she and Mathia Devi and her mother were quarrelling over theft of paddy from the Khambhar of one Kedar Choudhary, her husband, the deceased, came there and rather tried to pacify them. The appellants who were in the same Angan before a Ghura they came there all of a sudden and Chunni Rrshi caught hold of her husband from behind and Chaltu Rishi pierced a Garhail in his stomach. This witness was cross- examined at length and stood the test of it well. She has specifically said in her evidence that Chunni Rishi caught hold of her husband by his waist and Chaltu Rishi pierced a Garhail in his stomach and on halla her father-in-law came there. In her cross-examination she has categorically stated that the ladies had indulged in abuses in the angan which belonged to her and also the accused side. Kumudia, wife of Chaltu Rishi, according to the evidence of P.W.1, happens to be her Nanad and they were related to each other. In her cross examination, she has also made it clear that at the time of quarrel, no body was there besides the ladies, her husband and these appellants and others had come on halla. The evidence of P.W. 1 further goes to show that on halla her father-in-law Chhedi came there and seeing the precarious condition of her husband, arranged the thela and took him to the nearby hospital. In her evidence she has also stated that after assault her husband was lying in the Angan but he was dragged up to the road side by the appellants. She has categorically stated that no assault had taken place near the road and it was in the Angan. 10. P.W. 5 Chhedi Rishi, father of the deceased, in his evidence, has stated that though he had not seen the actual assault, but his son was in sense and had said before him that it were the appellants who had assaulted him and thereafter his son became senseless. However, there is nothing in his cross- examination to discredit his credibility. 11. However, there is nothing in his cross- examination to discredit his credibility. 11. From the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 5 it would appear that the names of the appellants were disclosed at the first instance as the assailants and as it further appears, these two appellants had assaulted the deceased with common intention to commit his murder. 12. P.W. 12 the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body, had found the following anternortem injuries on his person : I. Rigor mortis present in all the limbs. II. Incised wound 1"x1/2"x3" by the left side of the lower part of sternum at the level of medial end of 4th left rib. On dissection I found the following: 1. Head and neck NAD 2. Left fourth rib cut and separated at its medial end. Left lung penetrated at its mid part of medial border. 3. Hard penetrating wound in upper part of left ventricle. 4. Stomach empty, lever, kidneys, spleen, small intestine NAD 5. Urinary bladder empty. 13. On dissection the doctor found the left fourth rib cut and separated at its medial end. Penetrated injuries were also found in the left lung. Hard penetrating wound in upper part of left ventricle was also found. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries caused in the heart and lungs by sharp cutting weapon. 14. The evidence of the doctor P.W. 12 fully corroborates the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 5. P.W. 1 has proved the manner and factum of assault on the deceased. P.W. 13 the l.O. who investigated the case, has proved the F.l.R. (Exht. 5) and at the same time, he has also proved Exht, 6 the inquest report. He in his evidence has stated that on 28.12.90 while he was posted at Semapur outpost, at about half past 10 P.M., the informant Bimla Devi came there with the dead body of her husband and lodged her Fardbeyan (Ext. 1). After recording the Fardbeyan he held the inquest report and immediately went to the place of occurrence for investigation. He in his evidence has stated that on 28.12.90 while he was posted at Semapur outpost, at about half past 10 P.M., the informant Bimla Devi came there with the dead body of her husband and lodged her Fardbeyan (Ext. 1). After recording the Fardbeyan he held the inquest report and immediately went to the place of occurrence for investigation. In his evidence, he has stated that the place of occurrence was at a distance of 3/4 kilometres from the police outpost and when he had gone at the place of occurrence he had found sufficient blood in the Angan of the appellant Chaltu Rishi and had also found blood near the road side. At the same time, he had recovered one Garhail smeared with blood from the house and appellant Chaltu in presence of Mohsin All (P.W. 7) and he had prepared a seizure list (Exht 3). In his evidence he has also stated that the place of occurrence was the angan of the informant and also the accused persons. The evidence of the l.O. P.W. 13 corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1 that the deceased was assaulted in the Angan and thereafter he was dragged up to the road side and also the fact that he was assaulted with a Garhail. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the evidence of the defence namely D.Ws 1 and 2 fully nullifies the prosecution version of the case and presence of appellant Chunni Rishi is completely ruled out at the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 Kumudia Devi is none but the wife of appellant Chaltu Rishi. In her evidence she has stated that Mathia Devi, her daughter was already married and the deceased in the fateful night, in absence of her husband, entered in her house and tried to outrage the modesty of her daughter Mathia Devi on which she raised halla and 3/4 persons not known to her, entered into her house and she walked out of the house and the deceased was killed there but she had not seen as to who assaulted him. Her evidence has to be tested at the face of the evidence of the I.O. and also the doctor. Firstly, she stated that the deceased was in drunken stage. 16. Her evidence has to be tested at the face of the evidence of the I.O. and also the doctor. Firstly, she stated that the deceased was in drunken stage. 16. The doctor, in the postmortem report, and also in his evidence nowhere has stated that the deceased had taken alcohol before his death. At the same time, from the evidence of the I.O. it does not appear that any mark of violence or any drop of blood was found in the house of D.W. 1 Kumudia Devi. She has clearly stated in her evidence that deceased Sant Ram was assaulted in her house and at that time she had walked out from the house. In the evidence, the doctor and the I.O., fully falsify the evidence of D.W. 1. D.W.2 is a witness on the point of alibi of appellant Chunni Rishi. At the face of evidence of the prosecution, Chunni Rishi was present in the Angan, the evidence of D.W.2, in our opinion, is of no avail to the defence. 17. We have tested the evidence of P.W.1, P.W. 5, P.W. 12 and P.W. 13 with all objectivity and we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. We find overwhelming evidence against the appellants. 18. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are hereby affirmed. The appellants are on bail. The bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender in the court below to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.