HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No 291 of 2003
Hansraj
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh
...Respondents
! Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam counsel for the appellant
^ Shri Sandeep Yadav D y Govt Advocate for the State
CORAM: Honble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Honble Shri R N Chandrakar J
Dated: 30/07/2010
: Judgement
J U D G M E N T
Delivered on 3072010
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-12-2002 passed
in Sessions Trial Case No. 257 of 2002, whereby learned
Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kanker, District
Kanker, has convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, for committing
murder of Preetam, in default of payment of fine to
undergo further R.I. of six months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as projected in
the impugned judgment is that the accused appellant was
helping Ramlal in his domestic works in village Ghotha
Sakulpara. The accused/appellant was being tormented by
Ramlal whenever he demanded money as his wages. On 28-3-
2002 the appellant in the pretext that he is going to his
house, took the cycle and bag and proceeded ahead. At
about 9.00 he returned back and told Ramlal that the cycle
got punctured. He left the cycle and bag and demanded money
from Budhiyarin Bai for getting puncture repaired.
Budhiyarin Bai wife of the Ramlal told him that she had no
money and was taking out Dhan which the appellant can sell
the same in the shop for getting punctured repaired. After
refusal of the accused, Dhan, Budhiyarin Bai went to
nearby shop for selling Dhan. At that time, Ramlal was
plastering the courtyard. Budhiyarin Bai returned to her
house at 9.30 after selling Dhan. When she saw the accused
coming from towards Bari of the courtyard running with Farsi
in his hand. She went to the courtyard and saw Ramlal
her husband dead smeared with blood and his head chopped
off. Seeing the condition of her husband, she made outcry
saying that accused killed her husband and was running.
3. Information was registered as morgue intimation Ex.P/6.
After receiving morgue intimation, police proceeded for
investigation to village Patharri and prepared inquest (Ex-
P/10) over the person of the deceased in presence of
witnesses. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for autopsy
to Government Hospital, Mainpur, where Dr. K.C. Uram (PW/1)
conducted post mortem and gave his report (Ex-P/1). On the
basis of memorandum of the appellant (Ex.P/7), blood
stained weapon of offence broken club in two pieces was
taken into possession vide Ex.P/8. Station House Officer
prepared site map (Ex.P/14) and spot map (Ex.P/15) was got
prepared by Patwari Shri Mugal Singh Nagesh (PW/8).
Blood stained club was forwarded to Dr. K.C. Uram (PW/1) for
examination and the Doctor opined that injuries found on the
body of Meena Bai could be caused by bamboo stick and he
advised the article to be sent for chemical analysis for
confirmation of presence of blood (Ex.P/5).
4. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was
filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Gariyaband, who in turn committed
the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur and the same
was received on transfer for trial by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, who framed charge under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code against the appellant who abjured his
guilt.
5. Prosecution in order to establish the charges against
the appellant examined 9 witnesses in all. Thereafter
the statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which
he denied the circumstances appearing against him in
the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false
implication. He also pleaded that his wife consumed
excessive liquor and died due to fall. However, he did
not examine any witness in defence.
6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the
respective parties, convicted and sentenced the
appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of the
judgment.
7. Homicidal death of deceased Meena Bai has not been
seriously disputed. However, from the evidence of Dr.
K.C. Uram (PW/1), who conducted postmortem and proved
the report (Ex.P/1) in which he found the following
injuries on the person of the deceased and opined that
the cause of death was cardio- respiratory arrest due
to hypovolumia shock and homicidal in nature and has
further described that the mode of death was multiple
trauma on the body leads to abnormal collection of
blood over traumatical part which led to hypovolumia
of blood and further described that the time of death
was 24 – 72 hours before the postmortem, we are of the
opinion that the trial Court has rightly rejected the
defence of the appellant and held that the deceased
died homicidal death.
I N J U R I E S
i) On right lower part of chest over 9
- 12th rib area abrasion line 4 -5
cm long 2 in number, red colour.
ii) On the back side of body - right
scapulla 1 x 1 cm.
iii Black colour contusion and below
) inf. angle area of right scuppula
6 -7 cm long and 1 + to 2 cm with
contusion two in number.
iv) Neck: left side of neck- horizontal
contusion 10-12 cm long 1 + to 2 cm
width red colour.
v) Left shoulder- contusion - 3 x 4
cm. red colour.
vi) Buttock - right buttock - whole
buttock reddish colour, 10-12
contusions horizontal, oblique,
vertical each contusion - 8 m-10 cm
long 1 + to 2 cm width.
vii Buttock - 8-12 contusions, each 8-
) 10 cm long width 1 + to 2 cm.
vii Scapulla - two contusions, each
i) contusion 7-8 cm long 1 + to 2 cm
width.
8. Shri R.S. Marhas, learned counsel for the appellant
submits that there is no eye-witness to the incident. The
conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial
evidence. However, the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution have not been independently established during
investigation. The trial Court has also not considered the
fact that the appellant did not flee away from his house
after the incident. Had he been responsible for murder of
his wife, he could have definitely absconded. The time of
the incident is also not certain as the Doctor has given the
time of death of the deceased 24 to 72 hours from the
postmortem.
9. On the other hand, Shri G.D. Waswani, Government
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State supported the
impugned judgment.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record of the trial court as also the impugned
judgment.
11. Conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. The
circumstances relied upon by the trial Court are as under:-
O The appellant and the deceased resided together in the
same house where Meena Bai was murdered. Appellant’s sister-
in-law Kunti Bai (PW/4) who resides in the house adjacent to
the house of the appellant over heard the appellant and the
deceased quarrelling with each other and the screams of the
deceased to save her life.
O The appellant did not inform anyone in the village
about the death of his wife when he was asked by Budhram
(PW/3) as to how Meena Bai died. He kept quite and lastly
the appellant took defence that Meena Bai consumed excessive
liquor and she died due to fall under intoxication which has
been found to be false.
O The weapon of offence Bamboo stick was recovered on
the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant and
Doctor opined that the injuries present over the dead body
of Meena Bai could be caused by Bamboo stick.
12. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of Budhram
(PW/3) and Kunti Bai (PW/4) has held that both Meena Bai,
wife of the appellant and the appellant resided together
in the same house where the incident occurred.
13. PW/3 Budhram has deposed that the appellant is his
nephew whereas deceased is his daughter-in-law. After death
of Meena Bai, he went to Police Station and reported the
matter about the death of the deceased. He also stated that
he went and saw the dead body of the deceased, however, he
did not inspect closely and did not see any injury on her
person. At the time of inquest he noticed injuries over
the person of Meena Bai . In his cross examination he
admitted that Meena Bai used to consume excessive liquor and
she died because of that.
14. PW.4 – Kunti Bai, has deposed that the appellant is her
brother-in-law whereas Meena Bai, is wife of the appellant.
On Sunday at 10 – 11 p.m., she heard appellant and the
deceased quarreling. When she went out of her house, she
heard that Meena Bai was shouting to save her. After her
death she went to her and found injuries on her face. Meena
Bai and the appellant quarreled with each other on Sunday
and because of beating she died. In cross-examination she
has stated that her house is in front of the appellant’s
house.
15. From perusal of the above evidence, it is established
that the appellant and the deceased were husband and wife
and they resided together in the same house where the
incident took place. In the intervening night of Sunday and
Monday, there was quarrel between the deceased and the
appellant and the deceased was shouting for help which was
over heard by Kunti Bai (PW/4). Report of the incident was
lodged by Budhram (PW/3) in Police Station, Mainpur on 27-8-
2002. The deceased died in the house of the appellant,
however, he did not disclose the fact of her death either to
the villagers or to the Police and he kept quite till
investigation commenced after the report by Budhram
(PW/3). The appellant has taken the defence by way of cross-
examining the prosecution witnesses as also in his statement
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the
deceased died due to fall as she had consumed excessive
liquor. The above defence also establishes the presence of
the appellant in his house when Meena Bai died and the
explanation offered by the appellant regarding death of his
wife has been falsified by the evidence of Dr. K.C. Uram
(PW/1), who has categorically opined that the injuries
present over dead body could not be caused by fall on the
ground. That apart, the disclosure statement of the
appellant regarding the recovery of weapon of offence –
Bamboo stick and the Dr. K.C. Uram (PW/1) who opined that
the injuries present over the dead body could be caused by
bamboo stick and considering over all evidence available on
record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been
able to establish the charge against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt and the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution in the present case do not call for any
interference by this court and we find no substance in this
appeal
16. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed.
J U D G E
