Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2 (CHH)

Raidhar v. State of Chhattisgarh

2022-01-03

ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, RAJENDRA CHANDRA SINGH SAMANT

body2022
JUDGMENT : ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2015, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month Under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month Under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month 2. Name of the deceased, in this case, is Sumitrabai Netam. According to the case of prosecution, on 3.8.2014 at about 8:30 a.m. the Appellant went to the house of Sumitrabai Netam and dragged her out of the house saying that she used to commit witchcraft. After dragging her to near his house, he picked up a big stone weighing about 12 kgs. and assaulted on her head with that stone many times. As a result thereof, she died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7). Both are grand daughters of the deceased as also by Phoolbai (PW-15), daughter-in-law of the deceased. The matter was reported by Maheshram Netam (PW-2), son of the deceased. On the basis of the report, morgue intimation (Ex.P6) and First Information Report (Ex.P11) were recorded. Inquest proceeding (Ex.P8) was conducted. Post mortem examination over the dead body of Sumitrabai was conducted by Dr. S.P. Prajapati (PW-1). Post mortem report is Ex.P1. During the course of investigation, spot-map (Ex.P12) was prepared. Disclosure statement (Ex.P14) of the Appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded. On the basis thereof, the weapon of offence, i.e. 1 stone weighing about 12 kgs. was seized from the Appellant vide Ex.P15. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. Charges were framed against him by the Trial Court. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. was seized from the Appellant vide Ex.P15. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. Charges were framed against him by the Trial Court. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness was examined in his defence. 4. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that without there being any sufficient and clinching evidence on record, the Appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court. One of the eye-witnesses, namely, Phoolbai (PW-15) admitted the fact that at the time of alleged incident, she was not present on the spot. Eye-witnesses Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7) are close relatives of the deceased and, therefore, they are interested witnesses. There are material contradictions and omissions also in their statements. Therefore, their statements are not reliable. Hence, the conviction of the Appellant is not in accordance with the evidence available on record. 6. Opposing the above contentions, Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that from the statement of Dr. S.P. Prajapati (PW-1), who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, it is well established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Eye-witnesses Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7) have supported the entire case of the prosecution. Though they are close relatives of the deceased, their statements cannot be disbelieved only on that ground. Both have remained firm during their cross-examination. Looking to the evidence of both the eye-witnesses, the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the conviction of the Appellant is in accordance with the evidence on record. 7. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the statements of the witnesses and other evidence available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. Perusal of the post mortem examination report (Ex.P1) reveals that following injuries were found on the head of the deceased: (i) Lacerated wound above left eye-brow, 5 x 2 cms. with bleeding. 7. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the statements of the witnesses and other evidence available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. Perusal of the post mortem examination report (Ex.P1) reveals that following injuries were found on the head of the deceased: (i) Lacerated wound above left eye-brow, 5 x 2 cms. with bleeding. (ii) Lacerated wound above left ear, 7 x 2 cms. with bleeding. (iii) Lacerated wound above occipital region in middle of head, 10 x 2 cms. with bleeding. (iv) Lacerated wound below right ear, 2 x 2 cms. with bleeding. (v) Lacerated wound above right ear, 8 x 2 cms. with bleeding. (vi) One contusion over left side of face, 10 x 10 cms. It was also found that skull bone of the deceased was fractured into 3 x 2 cms. size. Swelling and bleeding were present in the membrane. The cause of death is reported to be the head injuries and excessive bleeding. The nature of death is opined to be homicidal. 9. Now the question remains for consideration is how the injuries occurred on the head of the deceased and by whom the injuries were caused. 10. According to the case of the prosecution, the Appellant committed the murder of the deceased by assaulting on her head by a big stone addressing her as a tonhi and alleging that she committed witchcraft. The conviction of the Appellant is based upon the statements of Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6), Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7) and Phoolbai (PW-15) and other circumstantial evidence. 11. Eye-witnesses Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7) deposed that at the time of incident, they were present along with deceased Sumitrabai Netam. At that time, the Appellant came and dragged the deceased out of their house to near his house. Phoolbai (PW-15), daughter-in-law of the deceased also corroborated the above statement of the two eye-witnesses. According to the statement of Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6), at that time, the Appellant, saying to the deceased that she used to commit witchcraft, dragged her out. In paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, this witness further stated that the Appellant and his family members used to allege that the deceased used to commit witchcraft. According to the statements of Ku. According to the statement of Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6), at that time, the Appellant, saying to the deceased that she used to commit witchcraft, dragged her out. In paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, this witness further stated that the Appellant and his family members used to allege that the deceased used to commit witchcraft. According to the statements of Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6), Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7) and Phoolbai (PW-15), the Appellant dragged the deceased to near his house and there he assaulted her by a big stone. Though Phoolbai (PW-15) admitted that she did not witness the marpeet, she remained firm on the point that it was seen by her that the Appellant dragged the deceased to near his house. Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7) categorically deposed that the Appellant, after dragging the deceased to near his house, assaulted her there on her head by a stone. On this point, both these witnesses remained firm during their cross-examination. Though they are grand daughters of the deceased, their statements cannot be disbelieved only on this ground. 12. On the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex.P14) of the Appellant, 1 big stone weighing about 12 kgs. was seized from the Appellant vide Ex.P15. According to the Forensic Science Laboratory Report (Ex.P21), human blood stains were found on that stone. How human blood stains were found on that stone has not been explained by the Appellant. 13. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. From the statements of Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6), Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7) and Phoolbai (PW-15), it is well established that the Appellant dragged the deceased out of her house and took her to near his house. As stated by Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6), the Appellant, saying to the deceased that she committed witchcraft, dragged her to near his house. From the statements of Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7), it is also established that after dragging the deceased to near his house, the Appellant assaulted on her head by a big stone weighing about 12 kgs. and thereby killed her. 14. Taking into consideration the fact that the weapon of assault was a big stone weighing about 12 kgs. Maya Netam (PW-6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7), it is also established that after dragging the deceased to near his house, the Appellant assaulted on her head by a big stone weighing about 12 kgs. and thereby killed her. 14. Taking into consideration the fact that the weapon of assault was a big stone weighing about 12 kgs. and the target area of the assault by the stone was the head of the deceased, it is well established that the intention of the Appellant was to commit her murder. Therefore, in our considered view, the finding of the Trial Court is based upon the evidence available on record and the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. As regards the offence committed under Sections 4 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005, in her Court statement, Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6) categorically deposed that at the time of incident, the Appellant, saying that the deceased used to commit witchcraft, came to their house and dragged her out of the house. Again in paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, she further deposed that whenever any villager fell ill, the Appellant and his family members blamed the deceased alleging that the deceased would have committed witchcraft. Her this statement is not duly rebutted during her cross-examination. Thus, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005. 16. As an outcome of the aforesaid discussion, we affirm the conviction of the Appellant imposed upon him by the Trial Court. The sentence imposed upon him also does not warrant any interference. The appeal is dismissed.