Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 279 (CHH)

SURAJLAL v. STATE OF C. G.

2013-09-23

RADHE SHYAM SHARMA, YATINDRA SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 12-9-2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur) in Sessions Trial No. 107/2007. By the impugned judgment, accused! appellant Surajlal has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under: Deceased Kuntibai was sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of appellant Surajlal, sister-in-law (Jethani) of Sanmat Bai (PW-2) and mother of Ram Kumar (PW-6). On the date of incident, i.e., 20-8-2007 deceased Kuntibai, Sukhlal (PW-l), Sanmat Bai (PW-2) and Kalawati (PW-4) were sowing paddy crop in the field of Sukhlal (PW -1). Sukhlal (PW -1) went to Daihan and left their cattle in the Daihan and thereafter he came back to his field. When he reached near the field, he heard shout of his wife Sanmat Bai (PW-2) that the appellant was drowning the deceased in the pond (Talab). He reached near the pond and saw that the appellant was drowning the deceased into the water. He entered into the water and took the deceased out of the pond. At that time, the deceased became unconscious. The deceased was taken to her house, where she died. Sukhlal (PW-1) lodged First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.-P/1) at Police Station Sonhat where Crime no. 63/07 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant. Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.-P/2) to 'Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/3) on the dead body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent to Community Health Center (CHC), Sonhat for postmortem examination vide Ex.-P/11. Doctor N.P. Bhargav (PW-12) conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and gave his report (Ex.-P/16) in which he opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning and cardio respiratory arrest and mode of the death was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, spot map (Ex.-P/4) was prepared by the Investigation Officer and Panchnama (Ex.-P/5) was also prepared. Gamchha of the appellant was seized vide Ex.-P/6. Another spot map was prepared by Patwari Yogesh Kumar Gupta (PW-5). The appellant was arrested vide Ex.-P/7. In further investigation, spot map (Ex.-P/4) was prepared by the Investigation Officer and Panchnama (Ex.-P/5) was also prepared. Gamchha of the appellant was seized vide Ex.-P/6. Another spot map was prepared by Patwari Yogesh Kumar Gupta (PW-5). The appellant was arrested vide Ex.-P/7. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Korea (Baikunthpur), who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Sukhlal (PW-1), Sanmat Bai (PW-2), Heerasai (PW-3), Smt. Kalawati (PW-4), Patwari Yogesh - Kumar Gupta (PW-5), Ramkumar (PW-6), Rajkumar (PW-7), Kotwar Heerasai (PW-8), Santlal (PW-9), Assistant Sub-Inspector Avtaru Ram Manik Puri (PW10), Constable Narendra Manhar (PW-11), Doctor N.P. Bhargav (PW-12) and Head Constable Raghunath Singh Maravi (PW-13). The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 4. Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has not been able to' prove that the appellant committed murder of the deceased. Sukhlal (PW-l), Sanmat Bai (PW-2), Kalawati (PW4) and Ramkumar (PW-6) are related to each other and they are highly interested witnesses. Their evidence is not reliable and is full of contradictions. He further argued that the appellant had no' motive to' kill the deceased. He further argued that the appellant himself entered into' the Pond for saving the life of the deceased and he tried to' bring the deceased out of the tank (pond). He has been falsely implicated by Sukhlal (PW-1), Sanmat Bai (PW-2) and Kalawati (PW-4). Hence, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 5. On the other hand, Shri Ravindra Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Sukhlal (PW -1) deposed that on the date of incident, he was sowing paddy crop in his field along with his wife Sanmat Bai (PW-2), sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Kuntibai (deceased), one Meera bai and other labours. Thereafter, he went to' forest to' graze the cattle. At about 5.00 pm, when he was returning from the forest and reached near the Pond, he heard shout of her wife Sanmat Bai (PW-2) that the appellant was killing the deceased by drowning into the Pond. Thereafter, he went to' forest to' graze the cattle. At about 5.00 pm, when he was returning from the forest and reached near the Pond, he heard shout of her wife Sanmat Bai (PW-2) that the appellant was killing the deceased by drowning into the Pond. He reached near the Pond running and saw that the appellant was drowning the deceased into the Pond. He entered immediately into the Pond and took the deceased and the appellant out of the Pond. The deceased became unconscious. He further deposed that at that time, Ramkumar (PW-6) and Rajkumar (PW-7) also came there and thereafter the deceased was taken to the house of Ramkumar (PW-6). 7. Sanmat Bai (PW-2) deposed that she was sowing paddy crop in her field along with her sister-in-law (Jethani) Kuntibai (deceased) and other labours. At about 5.00 pm, they went to the Pond for washing their hands. At that time, the appellant came there and tried to catch Sanmat Bai (PW-2) with an intent to outrage her modesty. She fled from there. Thereafter, the appellant caught the deceased, embraced her, dragged her into the Pond and drowned her into the water. Having seen the incident, she shouted for help. Having heard her shout, her husband Sukhlal (PW-1) came there and entered into the water and took the deceased out of the Pond. At that time, Ramkumar (PW-6), Rajkumar (PW-7) and Badsah also came there and the deceased was taken to' the house of Ramkumar (PW-6). Kalawati (PW-4) also deposed in similar fashion. 8. Heerasai (PW-3) deposed that at about 6.00 pm, he was in his house and Ramkumar (PW-6), who was son of the deceased, came to his house and told that the appellant dragged the deceased into the Pond and drowned her into the water. The deceased had become unconscious and the deceased was taken to the house. Ramkumar (PW-6) also asked him to come to his house. He further deposed that when he reached the house of Sanmat Bai (PW-2), by that time, the deceased had died. 9. Ramkumar (PW-6) and Rajkumar (PW-7) deposed that having heard the shout, they reached near the pond. Sukhlal (PW-1) entered into the water and took the deceased out of the pond. Ramkumar (PW-6) deposed that prior to this incident, the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the deceased and he wanted to make illicit relationship with the deceased. 9. Ramkumar (PW-6) and Rajkumar (PW-7) deposed that having heard the shout, they reached near the pond. Sukhlal (PW-1) entered into the water and took the deceased out of the pond. Ramkumar (PW-6) deposed that prior to this incident, the appellant tried to outrage the modesty of the deceased and he wanted to make illicit relationship with the deceased. 10. Heerasai (PW-3) specifically deposed that in winter season, at about 10.00 pm, he was going to his house. He entered Khairika (a place where cattle are kept) where fire was blazing. He saw that the appellant was sleeping with the deceased. Thereafter, a Panchayat was held but the appellant did not appear before the Panchayat. Sanmat Bai (PW-2) specifically deposed that the appellant tried to catch her. She extricated herself from the appellant, then the appellant caught the deceased and dragged her into the pond. 11. Sukhlal (PW-1) deposed that he lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Sonhat. Assistant Sub-Inspector Avtaru Ram Manikpuri (PW-10) deposed that on 21-8-2007, he was posted at Police Station Sonhat as Assistant Sub-Inspector. On 21-8-2007, Sukhlal (PW-1) lodged the FIR (Ex.-P/1) and he registered First Information No.63/2007 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He further deposed that he reached the place of occurrence and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/3) on the dead body of the deceased and the dead body of the deceased was sent to CHC, Sonhat for postmortem examination vide Ex.-P/11. Doctor N.P.Bhargav (PW-12) deposed that he conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and gave his report (Ex.-P/16) in which he opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning and cardio respiratory arrest and mode of the death was homicidal in nature. 12. The date and time of the incident was 20-8-2007 at about 5.00 pm and the FIR (Ex.-P/1) was lodged on the next day at about 12.20 pm. 12. The date and time of the incident was 20-8-2007 at about 5.00 pm and the FIR (Ex.-P/1) was lodged on the next day at about 12.20 pm. In the FIR (Ex.-P/l), the reason for delay in lodging the FIR is mentioned as : ^^jkf= gksus taxy igkM+ jkLrk gksus ds dkj.k^^ In the FIR (Ex.-P/1), it is mentioned that: ^^eS xkze ratjk es jgrk gw¡A [ksrh dk dke djrk gw¡A dy fnuakd 20&8&7 dks esjs [ksr es jksik yxok jgk FkkA esjh HkkSth dqUrh ckbZ] esjh vkSjr luer ckbZ] rFkk xk¡o ds cfugkj jksik yxk jgs FksA djhc 5-00 cts es cSyks dks xk; ds ysgM+ es feyk dj okil [ksr ds ikl igqapk rc esjh vkSjr gYyk djus yxh nkSM+ks&nkSM+ks dqUrh ckbZ dks lwjtyky ryok es Bsy ds ekj Mky jgk gSA rc es nkSM+ dj x;k ns[kk lwjtyky xksM rkykc ds vanj FkkA lwjtyky dk xnZu lhj fn[k jgk FkkA lwjtyky dqUrh ckbZ dks idM+ dj ikuh vanj nck;k FkkA dqUrh ckbZ dk iwjk ‘kjhj ikuh ds vanj FkkA lkM+h ikuh ds Åij dqN dqN fn[k jgk FkkA rc eS diM+k igus rkykc es dwn x;kA rFkk vius HkkHkh dqUrh ckbZ dk ckg idM+ dj [khp dj rkykc ds ckgj fudkyk dqUrh ckbZ csgks’k Fkh lkal :d&:d ds py jgk FkkA gYyk gksus ij jkedqekj cknlkg vk;s] jktdqekj Hkh vk;k dqUrh dsks mBk dj ?kj ys x;sA djhc 6-00 cts ‘kke dqUrh ej xbZA esjh vkSjr luer ckbZ crkbZ dh lwjtyky eq>s dj rkykc es cksy jgk Fkk Bsyw¡xkA eS NwM+kdj Hkkxh rks] nhnh dqUrh dks lwjtyky idM+ dj rkykc ds ikuh es Bsy dj ekjk gSA ,d lky igys BaMh efguk es lwjtyky dqUrh dks /kj idM+ fd;k Fkk ftldk iapk;r gqbZ FkhA lwjtyky iapk;r es ugh vk;k FkkA lwjtyky esjh HkkHkh dqUrh ckbZ ls xyr laca/k cukuk pkgrk FkkA^^----------------- 13. Looking to the FIR (Ex.P/1) and evidence of Heerasai (PW -3) and Ramkumar (PW -6), it appears that there was illicit relationship between the appellant and the deceased and a panchayat was held but the appellant did not appear before the panchayat. Raghunath Singh Maravi (PW-13) deposed that Heerasai (PW-3) had lodged a report at Police Station Sonhat where Rojnamcha Sanha No.30 was recorded. In Rojnamcha Sanha, it is also mentioned that there was illicit relationship between Surajlal (appellant) and Kuntibai (deceased). Therefore, the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased. 14. Raghunath Singh Maravi (PW-13) deposed that Heerasai (PW-3) had lodged a report at Police Station Sonhat where Rojnamcha Sanha No.30 was recorded. In Rojnamcha Sanha, it is also mentioned that there was illicit relationship between Surajlal (appellant) and Kuntibai (deceased). Therefore, the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased. 14. In the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he took the defence that he was falsely implicated, which is as under: ^^eS funksZ”k gw¡] eq>s >wBk Qlk¡;k x;k gSA eS vius [ksr es dke dj jgk FkkA ‘kuer eq>s vkok&vkok dgdj rkykc es cqykbZA rkykc es cqykbZA rkykc es dqUrh dk dsoy cky fn[k jgk FkkA eS dqUrh dks rkykc ls fudkyk vkSj mls ?kj ij igq¡pk;k FkkA^^ S 15. The appellant did not examine any witness to prove his defence and his defence was falsified by the prosecution witnesses. Heerasai (PW-3) is a witness who could prove illicit relationship between the appellant and the deceased but no any question was put to him that did the appellant take the deceased out of the pond? Kalawati (PW-4), Sukhlal (PW-l) and Sanmat Bai (PW-2) specifically deposed that it is wrong to say that the appellant entered into the pond for saving the deceased and he took the deceased out of the pond 16. In our opinion, the defence taken by the appellant is not reliable and the appellant has not been able to prove his defence that he entered into the water and took the deceased out of the pond. 17. The evidence of Sukhlal (PW-1), Sanmat Bai (PW -2) and Kalawati (PW-4) is cogent, trustworthy and reliable and can be based for conviction of the appellant. 18. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that it was the appellant who dragged the deceased into the water and the deceased died due to drowning caused by the appellant. 19. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal; it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.