Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 186 (CHH)

SANTOSH v. STATE OF C. G.

2008-07-28

RAJEEV GUPTA, S.K.SINHA

body2008
JUDGMENT Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :_ 1. Appellant Santosh stands convicted under Section 302 of the IPC with sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 16th March, 2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No.117 12001. 2. Appellant Santosh has been found guilty of commission of murder of deceased Mahrinbai by causing multiple external injuries by means of a Tangia on 13.06.2001. 3. Appellant's conviction is founded on the eye witness account of PW/5 Belabai, daughter-in-law of deceased Mahrinbai, whose evidence was found corroborated by the medical evidence of PW/9 Dr. S.R. Mandavi. 4. At the trial the capital charge of murder against accused Santosh was sought to be proved on the evidence of PW /1 Hemlal, PW /2 Phutturam, PW /3 Kabirdas, by PW/4 Jagdish Ram, PW/5 Belabai, PW/6 Mahan Das, PW/7 Mukteshwari Puri, PW/8 Gautam Lal Sahu, PW/9 Dr. S.R. Mandavi, and PW/10 T.S. Baghel. 5. Accused Santosh abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He however, did not examine any witness in his defence. 6. PW /9 Dr. S.R. Mandavi on postmortem examination found as many as five external injuries on the body of the deceased as detailed in the postmortem report (Ex.-P/12): of the five external injuries found on the body of the deceased; there were on her head region arid two On the neck. In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased Mahrinbai was shock and hemorrhage, resulting from the injuries found on the head region and neck. He further opine a that the external injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been Caused by means of a sharp edged weapon like 'Tangia' seized from the accused. 7. Shri D.R. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae for the appellant vehemently argued that the trial Court has erred in recording the 'appellant's conviction on the evidence of solitary eyewitness PW/5 Belabai, who is an interested witness being daughter-in-law of deceased Mahrinbai. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the evidence of solitary eyewitness PW /5 Be1abai stands belied by the medical evidence in as much as the eyewitness deposed about dealing of only two blows by the accused/appellant, whereas the autopsy surgeon found as many as five external injuries on the body of the deceased. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the evidence of solitary eyewitness PW /5 Be1abai stands belied by the medical evidence in as much as the eyewitness deposed about dealing of only two blows by the accused/appellant, whereas the autopsy surgeon found as many as five external injuries on the body of the deceased. 8. Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Government Advocate on the other hand supported the impugned judgment of conviction and contended that it is the quality of the evidence which matters and not the quantity of the evidence. 9. PW /5 Belabai has categorically deposed that on the fateful day, accused Santosh was digging a drain through their 'badi', which was objected to by her mother-in-law, deceased Mahrinbai. Accused Santosh, thereupon started abusing the deceased and dealt repeated blows by means of Tangia. It is further in her evidence that when she tried to intervene, the accused threatened to assault her also. When she shouted for help, her husband Hemlal, and villagers Jagdish and Kabirdas came there, but by that time, her mother-in-law Mahrinbai had succumbed to her injuries. She was subjected to a lengthy cross examination, but nothing could be elicited by the defence in her cross examination which may render her evidence unworthy of credence. 10. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of PW/5 Belabai, we are satisfied that she is a reliable witness and her evidence can safely be acted upon. Her evidence stands amply corroborated by the medical evidence of PW/9 Dr. S.R. Mandavi, who found multiple external injuries on the body of deceased Mahrinbai which could have been caused by means of a tangia. Merely because she is daughter-in-law of deceased Mahrinbai, her evidence cannot be discarded. 11. On a thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record in general and that of PW/5 Belabai and PW 19 Dr. S.R. Mandavi in particular, we are satisfied that the trial Court has rightly believed the evidence of PW/5 Belabai in holding accused appellant Santosh guilty of causing those injuries on deceased Mahrinbai by means of a tangia which resulted in her death. 12. S.R. Mandavi in particular, we are satisfied that the trial Court has rightly believed the evidence of PW/5 Belabai in holding accused appellant Santosh guilty of causing those injuries on deceased Mahrinbai by means of a tangia which resulted in her death. 12. The manner in which the appellant dealt repeated blows on head region and neck of deceased Mahrinbai; the number and nature of the injuries found on head region and neck of deceased Mahrinbai; the use of a heavy and sharp object Tangia for causing injuries by the accused 1 appellant on tie deceased; and the vital parts of the body i.e. head region and neck, selected by the appellant for causing injuries on the deceased, who succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself do not leave any room for doubt that accused appellant Santosh while causing those injuries on deceased Mahrinbai had intended to cause her death. The proved act of appellant Santosh of causing multiple injuries by means of a tangia on deceased Mahrinbai, therefore, in our opinion, would not amount to anything short of 'murder' and would be punishable under Section 302 of the IPC only. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life recorded by the trial Court is hereby maintained. Appeal Dismissed. 2008(3) e.G.L.J.