Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 250 (CHH)

TULSI RAM v. STATE OF C. G.

2008-09-09

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2008
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :- 1. Appellant Tulsi Ram stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short' LP.C.') with sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 9-4-2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 148/2001. 2. Appellant Tulsi Ram has been found guilty of commission of murder of one Dev Singh Lodhi in the noon of 13-8-2001 by causing multiple injuries on him by means of Tangia, resulting in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. 3. The appellant's conviction is founded on the eyewitness account of PW -5 Tumman @ Chumman and PW-6 Ashwini, whose evidence was found corroborated by the trial Court by the medical evidence of PW -13 Dr. N. Sachdev. 4. The Autopsy Surgeon PW-13 Dr. N. Sachdev on postmortem' examination found as many as six incised wounds on the body of deceased Dev Singh with corresponding fractures of his skull bones as detailed in the postmortem report Ex. P-19. In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon, the deceased died on account of the shock resulting from the multiple fractures of his skull bones. 5. At the trial, the capital charge of murder was sought to be proved against accused Tulsi Ram on the evidence of PW -1 Bhav Singh. PW -2 Hariram, PW-3 Nakul Singh, PW-4 Angaram, PW-5 Chumman @ Tumman, PW-6 Ashwini, PW -7 Mukesh, PW -8 Kirti Bai, PW -9 Sukhdev, PW -10 S.R. Diwan, PW -11 Virendra Kumar, PW -12 Rooplal Thakur & PW -13 Dr. N. Sachdev. 6. Accused Tulsi Ram abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication on account of enmity. The accused, however did not examine any witness in his defence. 7. The trial Court on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial in general and thatofPW-5 Chumman@Tumman,PW-6Ashwini& PW -13 Dr. N. Sachdev in particular, held appellant Tulsi Ram guilty of causing those injuries on deceased Dev Singh by means of Tangia, which resulted in his instantaneous death. The trial Court further found that the appellant while causing those injuries on deceased Dev Singh had intended to cause his death. On the above findings, the trial Court convicted appellant Tulsi Ram under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 8. The trial Court further found that the appellant while causing those injuries on deceased Dev Singh had intended to cause his death. On the above findings, the trial Court convicted appellant Tulsi Ram under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 8. Shri Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surbhanl, vehemently argued that as the evidence of the two eyewitnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence, the trial Court has erred in recording the appellant's conviction. 9. Shri U.N.S. Deo, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment of appellant's conviction and contended that the evidence of PW -5 Churnman @ Tumman and PW -6 Ashwini has been rightly believed by the trial Court in holding appellant Tulsi Ram guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 10. It is not in dispute before us that deceased Dev Singh died a homicidal death on account of the injuries sustained by him on 13-8-2001. That apart, the ocular evidence of PW -5 Chun1man@ Turnman & PW -6 Ashwini and the medical evidence of PW -13 Dr. N. Sachdev amply establish the above fact that deceased Dev Singh died a homicidal death on account of the injuries sustained by him on 13-8-2001. 11. PW -5 Chumman @ Tumman who was aged about 12 years on the date of the incident was grazing goats along with PW -6 Ashwini and appellant Tulsi Ram. He has deposed that in the noon at about 1.00 when he was cutting some branches of a mango tree, deceased Dev Singh came from his village to his agricultural field at a nearby place. Dev Singh found that some goats had strayed into his field. This led to exchange of abuses between accused Tulsi Ram and deceased Dev Singh. Accused Tulsi Ram thereupon dealt Tangia blow on the head region of De v Singh. This witness thereafter fled away from the place of occurrence. Nothing could be elicited by the defence in his cross-examination which may render his evidence unworthy of credence. In fact, there is virtually no cross-examination of this witness about the main incident of assault on the deceased. 12. This witness thereafter fled away from the place of occurrence. Nothing could be elicited by the defence in his cross-examination which may render his evidence unworthy of credence. In fact, there is virtually no cross-examination of this witness about the main incident of assault on the deceased. 12. Other eyewitness PW -6 Ashwini deposing in line with the evidence PW -5 Chumman @ Turnman, stated that on the fateful day when deceased Dev Singh came to his field, exchange of abuses took place between Dev Singh and accused Tulsi Ram. Accused Tulsi Ram thereupon, dealt a Tangia blow on the deceased, as a result whereofthe deceased fell on the ground. Thereafter, this witness fled away from the place of occurrence. In para 3 of his cross-examination, he categorically stated that he witnessed dealing of one blow by the accused by means of Tangia on the deceased and thereafter, he ran away from the place of occurrence. 13. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of these two eyewitnesses, namely, PW -5 Chumman @ Tumman and PW -6 Ashwini, we are satisfied that both these witnesses are truthful and reliable witnesses and their evidence can safely be acted upon. There is not even a suggestion to these witnesses that they are in any manner related to the deceased or are inimical to accused Tulsi Ram. We, therefore, do not find any earthly reason for these two eyewitnesses to depose falsely against the appellant. 14. The ocular evidence of PW-5 Chumman @ Tumman and PW-6 Ashwini stands amply corroborated by the medical evidence of PW -13 Dr. N. Sachdev, who on postmortem examination found incised wounds on the body of the deceased, which could have"been caused by means of a sharp edged weapon like Tangia. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW -5 Chumman@ Tumman and PW -6 Ashwini is belied by the medical evidence of PW -13 Dr. N. Sachdev as these eyewitnesses have deposed about dealing of one Tangia blow by the accused, whereas the Autopsy Surgeon found as many as six incised wounds on the body of the deceased. 16. In view of the categoric evidence of the two eyewitnesses that both of them had run away from the place of occurrence after dealing of first blow by the accused on the deceased, the above submission deserves an outright rejection. 16. In view of the categoric evidence of the two eyewitnesses that both of them had run away from the place of occurrence after dealing of first blow by the accused on the deceased, the above submission deserves an outright rejection. In this fact situation, the two eyewitnesses obviously could not have seen the further assault of the deceased by the accused. In our opinion, these two eyewitnesses in not deposing about the further assault have only proved that they are truthful and innocent eyewitnesses as they have deposed only about that part of the incident which they actually witnessed. 17. The dictum of the Apex Court in the Case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surbhan1 (Supra), in the fact situation of the present case is of no help to the appellant. 18. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court holding appellant Tulsi Ram guilty of causing those injuries on deceased Dev Singh, which resulted in his instantaneous death on the spot itself. 19. The number and nature of the injuries found on the deceased and the corresponding multiple fractures of his skull bones coupled with the fact that the injuries sustained by the deceased resulted in his instantaneous death on the spot itself and that the injuries were caused by means of a sharp edged weapon Tangia, do not leave any room for' doubt that appellant Tulsi Ram while causing those injuries on deceased Dev Singh had intended to cause his death. 20. The proved act of appellant Tulsi Ram of causing as many as six incised wounds by means of a Tangia on deceased Dev Singh, in our opinion, therefore, would not amount to anything short of 'Murder' and would be punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. only. 21. The appeal filed by appellant Tulsi Ram against his conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.