{"id":128920,"date":"2009-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-20T13:47:13","modified_gmt":"2015-11-20T08:17:13","slug":"ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n        HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR        \n\n                Division Bench\n\nCoram         Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh and Hon'ble Shri Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar, JJ.\n\n\n           Criminal Appeal No 1117 of 2007 and Criminal Reference No 3 of 2007\n\n                    1.  Ramnaresh\n\n                     2.  Vishwanath Singh\n\n                     3.  Amar Singh\n\n                     4.  Ranjeet  Kewat\n\n                         All Ro Village Gullidand\n                                                   ...Petitioners\n\n\n\n                       versus\n\n                        State   of   Chhattisgarh\n                                                   ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n!         Smt. Fouzia Mirza and Shri R.K.Pali,counsel for the appellants accused.\n\n^          Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer for the State\/respondent.\n\n\n\n#                State   of   Chhattisgarh\n                                          ...Petitioners\n                       versus\n\n$                    1.  Ramnaresh\n\n                     2.  Vishwanath Singh\n\n                     3.  Amar Singh\n\n                     4.  Ranjeet  Kewat\n\n\n                       All Ro Village Gullidand\n                                               ...Respondents\n\n\n!  Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Panel Lawyer for the State\/appellant.\n\n^ Dr. Rajesh Pandey, counsel for respondents No.1 and 3\/accused.Shri Arun Kochar, counsel for respondents No.2 and 4\/accused. \n\n\n\nHon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, Hon'ble Shri Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar, JJ.\n\n   Dated:24\/07\/2009\n\n:   Judgement\n\n Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of\n                 Criminal Procedure\n\n Criminal Reference under Section 366(1) of the Code\n                of Criminal Procedure\n\n\n\n                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     (Delivered on this 24th day of July, 2009)<\/p>\n
     The   following  judgment  of  the   Court   was
\ndelivered  by                                   Dilip
\nRaosaheb Deshmukh, J.:\n<\/p>\n
      This  judgment  shall  govern  Criminal  Appeal<\/p>\n
No.1117\/2007   preferred  by  the  appellants\/accused<\/p>\n
Ramnaresh,  Vishwanath Singh, Amar Singh and  Ranjeet   <\/p>\n
Kewat  and Criminal Reference No.3\/2007 under Section <\/p>\n
366(1)  of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth<\/p>\n
`the  Code’) by Shri Ram Kumar Tiwari, the Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions  Judge,  Pendra Road, District  Bilaspur  in<\/p>\n
Sessions Trial No.403\/2006.\n<\/p>\n
\n(2)   The  Additional  Sessions Judge,  Pendra  Road,<\/p>\n
District Bilaspur has, vide judgment dated 20-11-2007<\/p>\n
delivered  in  Sessions Trial No.403\/2006,  convicted<\/p>\n
the  appellants\/accused Ramnaresh, Vishwanath  Singh,  <\/p>\n
Amar  Singh  and  Ranjeet Kewat under  Sections  449, <\/p>\n
376(2)(g) and 302 read with Section 34 of the  Indian<\/p>\n
Penal  Code  and  sentenced them to undergo  rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment  for 10 years and fine of Rs.200\/-  each<\/p>\n
and in default additional rigorous imprisonment for 1<\/p>\n
month under Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code,  to<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.200\/-  each  and<\/p>\n
in  default  additional rigorous imprisonment  for  1<\/p>\n
month  under  Section 376(2)(g) of the  Indian  Penal<\/p>\n
Code.  Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of  the<\/p>\n
Indian   Penal  Code,  the  appellants\/accused   were<\/p>\n
sentenced to death.\n<\/p>\n
\n(3)  Admittedly, appellant Ranjeet is the brother  of<\/p>\n
Indrajeet  P.W.-1 and lives next door to  his  house.<\/p>\n
Sugaribai  P.W.-12  is  the mother  of  the  deceased<\/p>\n
Rajkumari.  Dhaniram P.W.-6 is also known as Rottam.  <\/p>\n
(4)   Prosecution case is that on the night  of  9-8-<\/p>\n
2006, the date of Rakshabandhan, Indrajeet P.W.-1 had <\/p>\n
gone  to  Rajnagar  to  meet his  father.   His  wife<\/p>\n
Rajkumari,  the deceased was alone in the house  with<\/p>\n
her  two  minor children aged about 7  months  and  3<\/p>\n
years respectively.  Sunita P.W.-2, Anita P.W.-3  and<\/p>\n
Belabai P.W.-5 had left the house of Rajkumari around<\/p>\n
7   P.M.  after  watching  television  with  her  for<\/p>\n
sometime.   Servant Dhaniram P.W.-6, aged  16  years, <\/p>\n
was  present  at  the  house and  continued  watching<\/p>\n
television after Rajkumari slept at about  9:30  P.M.<\/p>\n
Sunita  P.W.-2,  Anita  P.W.-3,  Belabai  P.W.-5  and<\/p>\n
Dhaniram P.W.-6 had seen the appellants\/accused  with <\/p>\n
one   Kamlesh  P.W.-10  at  the  adjacent  house   of<\/p>\n
appellant  Ranjeet.   At about 10:30  P.M.,  all  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused consumed liquor at  the  house  of<\/p>\n
appellant  Ranjeet.  At about 12 in  the  night,  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused arrived at the house of  Rajkumari<\/p>\n
and  told  Dhaniram  P.W.-6 that  they  would  ravish<\/p>\n
Rajkumari  and  would kill him if  he  told  this  to<\/p>\n
anyone.  Appellants Ramnaresh and Amar Singh sat with  <\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6.  Appellants Ranjeet and  Vishwanath <\/p>\n
committed rape on Rajkumari after bringing  her  down<\/p>\n
from  the  cot.  Thereafter, appellants  Ranjeet  and<\/p>\n
Vishwanath took Dhaniram P.W.-6 to the courtyard  and <\/p>\n
appellants Ramnaresh and Amar Singh entered the  room  <\/p>\n
of  Rajkumari.  After sometime, appellants  Ramnaresh<\/p>\n
and  Amar  Singh  emerged from  the  room  and  asked <\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6  to  go  inside.   Dhaniram   P.W.-6<\/p>\n
denied,  whereupon appellants Ranjeet and  Vishwanath <\/p>\n
threatened  to kill him if he did not go  inside  the<\/p>\n
room.  Dhaniram P.W.-6 entered the room and saw  that <\/p>\n
Rajkumari  could  not speak and  was  breathing  very<\/p>\n
heavily.  Blood was coming out of her mouth and nose.<\/p>\n
On  seeing this, Dhaniram P.W.-6 left the room.   The<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused threatened Dhaniram P.W.-6 that he <\/p>\n
would be killed if he did not keep quiet.  Appellants<\/p>\n
Ranjeet  and  Vishwanath  asked  Dhaniram  P.W.-6  to <\/p>\n
inform  Sugaribai P.W.-12, mother of  Rajkumari  that<\/p>\n
Rajkumari  was not awaking from sleep  and  left  for<\/p>\n
their  homes after threatening to kill him.  Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6 went and informed Sugaribai P.W.-12 at about 3 <\/p>\n
A.M.  that  Rajkumari was fast asleep and  would  not<\/p>\n
awake.   Sugaribai  P.W.-12  came  to  the  house  of<\/p>\n
Rajkumari and saw her lying dead with injury  on  the<\/p>\n
throat  and private parts and blood oozing  from  her<\/p>\n
mouth and nostrils.\n<\/p>\n
\n(5)   On receiving information, Indrajeet P.W.-1 came<\/p>\n
to  Village  Gullidand  and  saw  the  dead  body  of<\/p>\n
Rajkumari.   Merg  Intimation Ex.P-1  was  lodged  by<\/p>\n
Indrajeet P.W.-1 in P.S. Marwahi at 10:50 A.M. on 10-<\/p>\n
8-2006.    Head  Constable  Jagmohan  Panna   P.W.-14  <\/p>\n
reached the place of occurrence and noticed that dead<\/p>\n
body of Rajkumari was lying in a supine position on a<\/p>\n
black blanket.  He prepared Naksha Panchayatnama Ex.P-   <\/p>\n
3  on  10-8-2006 at 4 P.M.  As mentioned  therein,  a<\/p>\n
small  white piece of saree having blood like  stains<\/p>\n
and  red  coloured pieces of broken bangles of  right<\/p>\n
hand  were  seen lying near the dead body.  On  10-8-<\/p>\n
2006, the piece of saree (Article A) approximately 1+<\/p>\n
feet  in length and 3 feet in width having blood like<\/p>\n
stains at 6-7 places and 7 pieces of red bangles were<\/p>\n
seized by Head Constable Jagmohan Panna P.W.-14  from    <\/p>\n
the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\n(6)   Post  mortem on the dead body of  the  deceased<\/p>\n
Rajkumari   was  conducted  by  a  team  of   doctors<\/p>\n
comprising  of Dr. Sheela Saha P.W.-7 and Dr.  Mahesh <\/p>\n
Singh  on 10-8-2006 at 2:10 P.M (Ex.P-12).  The  body<\/p>\n
was  cold.   Rigor Mortis was present in lower  limbs<\/p>\n
and  absent in both upper limbs.  Eyes and mouth were<\/p>\n
semi-open.   Blood  mixed froth had  oozed  from  the<\/p>\n
nostril and mouth.  There were two abrasions  of  the<\/p>\n
size  0.5″x0.5″ with scratch mark by nails below  the<\/p>\n
angle  of right mandible just in front of the  sterno<\/p>\n
cleado mastoid muscle with another scratch mark 1″ in<\/p>\n
length  above it.  There was an abrasion on the  left<\/p>\n
side  of  neck below the angle of mandible to mastoid<\/p>\n
process  with  scratch mark as shown in the  diagram.<\/p>\n
There  was  an abrasion in the thigh of the  size  of<\/p>\n
1″x0.5″  with contusion 1″x1″ present on both  medial<\/p>\n
aspects of thigh.  On internal examination, petechial<\/p>\n
haemorrhage was present in both lungs, right side  of<\/p>\n
heart  was filled with blood while the left ventricle<\/p>\n
was  empty.  There were lacerations with abrasions  3<\/p>\n
to  4  in  number  over  perineum  with  blood  mixed<\/p>\n
discharge.  Uterus was ante-verted normal size.   Two<\/p>\n
vaginal  glass  slides  (Articles  G1  and  G2)  were<\/p>\n
prepared,  sealed  and  handed  over  to  the  Police<\/p>\n
Constable  for chemical analysis.  One  orange  saree<\/p>\n
and  one green petticoat (Article F) with blood  like<\/p>\n
and  white  stains, which were encircled and  sealed,<\/p>\n
were  also  handed  over to Police  Constable  No.310<\/p>\n
Suresh Lakda, P.S. Marwahi for chemical analysis.  It<\/p>\n
was opined that death was as a result of asphyxia due<\/p>\n
to strangulation (throttling).  There was evidence of<\/p>\n
rape.   All  injuries  were ante  mortem  in  nature.<\/p>\n
Nature  of  death was homicidal.  Time elapsed  since<\/p>\n
death was 12 to 14 hours.\n<\/p>\n
\n(7)   Statement of Indrajeet P.W.-1 under Section 161<\/p>\n
of  the  Code was recorded on 12-8-2006 in  which  he<\/p>\n
stated  that  his servant Dhaniram P.W.-6  had  shown<\/p>\n
complete ignorance about cause of death of Rajkumari.<\/p>\n
A  doubt regarding involvement in the offence of  one<\/p>\n
Bhupendra  whom Rajkumari had married about  3  years  <\/p>\n
prior   to  marrying  Indrajeet  P.W.-1,  was   cast.<\/p>\n
Statement of Dhaniram P.W.-6 under Section 161 of the <\/p>\n
Code  was  recorded on 12-8-2006 in which he narrated<\/p>\n
for  the first time regarding the commission of  rape<\/p>\n
by the appellants\/accused on Rajkumari.  Statement of<\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6 under Section 164 of  the  Code  was <\/p>\n
recorded  by  the  Judicial Magistrate  First  Class,<\/p>\n
Bilaspur  on 19-9-2006.  The appellants\/accused  were<\/p>\n
arrested on 13-8-2006 between 3:30 and 4:10 P.M.   On <\/p>\n
13-8-2006  at  4:30  P.M.,  one  full  sleeves  shirt<\/p>\n
(Article B) having blood like stains was removed from<\/p>\n
the body of appellant Ranjeet and seized vide Ex.P-7.<\/p>\n
On  the  same  day at 4:50 P.M. one  blue  old  nylon<\/p>\n
underwear  (Article C) having blood like  stains  was<\/p>\n
removed  from the body of appellant Vishwanath  Singh<\/p>\n
and seized vide Ex.P-8.  On the same day at 5:10 P.M. <\/p>\n
one  old  green  nylon underwear (Article  D)  having<\/p>\n
blood  like  stains  was removed  from  the  body  of<\/p>\n
appellant Amar Singh and seized vide Ex.P-9.  On  the<\/p>\n
same  day  at  5:15 P.M., one maroon nylon  underwear <\/p>\n
(Article E) having blood like stains was removed from<\/p>\n
the body of appellant Ramnaresh and seized vide Ex.P-<\/p>\n
10.   Slides Articles H1 and H2 of appellant Ranjeet,<\/p>\n
I1 and I2 of appellant Vishwanath Singh, J1 and J2 of<\/p>\n
appellant  Amar  Singh and K1  and  K2  of  appellant<\/p>\n
Ramnaresh were seized vide Ex.P-13 at 5:20 P.M. on 19- <\/p>\n
8-2006  from Police Constable Brijnandan Singh  P.W.-<\/p>\n
13.    Report  of  the  medical  examination  of  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused was not produced in the  documents <\/p>\n
under  Section  173  of  the Code.   The  doctor  who<\/p>\n
examined the appellants\/accused was also not cited as <\/p>\n
a  witness.  Seizure memo Ex.P-13 did not  show  that<\/p>\n
the  slides  were  seminal slides.  By  memo  Ex.P-21<\/p>\n
dated  25-10-2006  of  the Senior  Superintendent  of<\/p>\n
Police,  Bilaspur  the abovementioned  articles  were<\/p>\n
sent   for  chemical  analysis  to  Forensic  Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory,  Raipur through Police  Constable  No.310<\/p>\n
Suresh  Lakda  and  were  received  in  the  Forensic<\/p>\n
Science   Laboratory,  Raipur   on   6-11-2006   vide<\/p>\n
acknowledgment   Ex.P-22.    After   completion    of<\/p>\n
investigation,   challan  was   filed   against   the<\/p>\n
appellants   on   6-11-2006   before   the   Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, who committed it<\/p>\n
for trial to the Court of Session on 15-12-2006.  The<\/p>\n
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road framed <\/p>\n
charges  under Sections 449, 376(2)(g) and  302  read<\/p>\n
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against  the<\/p>\n
appellants, who abjured the guilt.\n<\/p>\n
\n(8)     During trial, report of the Forensic  Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory,   Raipur  Ex.P-23  dated  31-7-2007   was<\/p>\n
produced  and admitted in evidence under Section  293<\/p>\n
of the Code by which presence of blood on Articles A,<\/p>\n
B, C, D, E, F1, F2 and presence of seminal stains and<\/p>\n
human  spermatozoa on Articles C, D, E, F1,  F2,  G1,<\/p>\n
H1,  I1, J1 and K1 was confirmed.  Seminal stains and<\/p>\n
human spermatozoa was not found on Articles A and  B.  <\/p>\n
The  seminal stains on Articles C, D, E,  F1  and  F2<\/p>\n
were not sufficient for serological examination.  The<\/p>\n
Slides  Articles G2, H2, I2, J2 and K2 were preserved<\/p>\n
if  D.N.A.  Test was felt necessary.  The prosecution<\/p>\n
examined    as    many   as   16   witnesses.     The<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused examined Samelal D.W.-1 and  Kamla   <\/p>\n
D.W.-2   wife  of  Ranjeet  to  establish  that   the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  had  slept  in  their  respective<\/p>\n
houses between 9 to 10 P.M. on 9-8-2006. <\/p>\n
(9)  Relying upon the sole testimony of Dhaniram P.W.-<\/p>\n
6, which was duly corroborated by medical evidence of<\/p>\n
Dr.  Sheela  Saha P.W.-7 and Sugaribai  P.W.-12,  the<\/p>\n
learned   Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Pendra   Road<\/p>\n
convicted  and  sentenced the  appellants\/accused  as<\/p>\n
shown in paragraph 2 supra.\n<\/p>\n
\n(10) Smt. Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the    appellants\/accused    in    Criminal    Appeal<\/p>\n
No.1117\/2007  argued that the testimony  of  Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  was not reliable because he did not  disclose<\/p>\n
the names of the appellants\/accused to anyone or even<\/p>\n
to  the police till 12-8-2006.  Laying stress on  the<\/p>\n
testimony of Indrajeet P.W.-1 in paragraph  10  which<\/p>\n
revealed  that on arrival at the scene of  occurrence<\/p>\n
he had noticed that shining material (Jalposh) of the<\/p>\n
bangles worn by his wife Rajkumari was present on the<\/p>\n
right  side of the body of Dhaniram P.W.-6  who  told<\/p>\n
him  that  he had collected the broken bangles  in  a<\/p>\n
container  which he did not hand over to the  police,<\/p>\n
it was argued that the possibility that Dhaniram P.W.-<\/p>\n
6,  who  was  undoubtedly present  at  the  scene  of<\/p>\n
occurrence,   had  committed  rape  and   murder   of<\/p>\n
Rajkumari  and had falsely implicated the  appellants<\/p>\n
could  not  be ruled out.  According to  the  learned<\/p>\n
counsel  for the appellants\/accused, this possibility<\/p>\n
was further strengthened by the admission of Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  in paragraph 11 that the police had  detained<\/p>\n
him at the police station for 8 days and in the lock-<\/p>\n
up  for  4  days and had also beaten him.   Appellant<\/p>\n
Ranjeet was not only married but was also the brother-<\/p>\n
in-law  of  the  deceased.  The fact  that  appellant<\/p>\n
Vishwanath was present at the time of taking the body<\/p>\n
of   Rajkumari   for  post  mortem  examination   and<\/p>\n
according to Sugaribai P.W.-12 on reaching the  place<\/p>\n
of  occurrence, appellant Ranjeet was  seen  carrying<\/p>\n
the  minor daughter of Rajkumari in his arms and  had<\/p>\n
also  gone to call Rewa Lohar for Jhaadphoonk  belies<\/p>\n
the  prosecution case that they were responsible  for<\/p>\n
rape and murder of Rajkumari.  The testimony of Kamla<\/p>\n
D.W.-2,  the  wife of appellant Ranjeet that  on  the<\/p>\n
date  of occurrence appellant Ranjeet had slept at  9<\/p>\n
P.M.   in   the  house  completely  ruled   out   the<\/p>\n
participation  of appellant Ranjeet in  the  offence.<\/p>\n
It  was  also  argued that the testimony of  Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6   revealed  that  appellants  Vishwanath   and<\/p>\n
Ranjeet  had, after entering the room where Rajkumari<\/p>\n
was  sleeping,  emerged from the room after  half  an<\/p>\n
hour  and  thereafter appellants Ramnaresh  and  Amar<\/p>\n
Singh went inside the room and came out after half an<\/p>\n
hour.   Thus,  if Rajkumari was alive when  Ramnaresh<\/p>\n
and  Amar  Singh  entered the room,  the  charge  for<\/p>\n
commission  of murder of Rajkumari against appellants<\/p>\n
Vishwanath and Ranjeet could not be held to have been<\/p>\n
established.   The fact that hyoid bone of  Rajkumari<\/p>\n
was  not  fractured  ruled out the  possibility  that<\/p>\n
Rajkumari was throttled by four able bodied young men<\/p>\n
while causing her death after ravishing her.  Lastly,<\/p>\n
it  was  argued that the testimony of Dhaniram P.W.-6<\/p>\n
was  neither  wholly reliable nor  wholly  unreliable<\/p>\n
and,   therefore,  unless  it  was  corroborated   in<\/p>\n
material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or<\/p>\n
circumstantial,   conviction  and  sentence   awarded<\/p>\n
against  the  appellants  by the  learned  Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions  Judge,  Pendra Road was liable  to  be  set<\/p>\n
aside.   Learned  counsel  further  argued  that  the<\/p>\n
prosecution   had  failed  to  establish   that   the<\/p>\n
appellants   were  potent  and  capable   of   sexual<\/p>\n
intercourse  since no material was placed  on  record<\/p>\n
with  the documents under Section 173 of the Code  to<\/p>\n
show  that  the appellants were subjected to  medical<\/p>\n
examination  as  required under Section  53A  of  the<\/p>\n
Code.   So  far  as the presence of semen  and  human<\/p>\n
spermatozoa  on  the slides H1, I1,  J1  and  K1  was<\/p>\n
concerned,   no   material  was   produced   by   the<\/p>\n
prosecution as to who had prepared these slides.   In<\/p>\n
other  words, there was no material to show that  the<\/p>\n
slides  H1, I1, J1 and K1 were the seminal slides  of<\/p>\n
the appellants.  The memo Ex.P-13 also did not reveal<\/p>\n
that  the  slides seized by the police  were  seminal<\/p>\n
slides  or  were  seized  from  the  person  who  had<\/p>\n
prepared such slides.  In the absence of any material<\/p>\n
to  connect  the  slides H1, I1, J1  and  K1  to  the<\/p>\n
appellants the report Ex.P-23 of the Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory, Raipur was of no avail to the prosecution<\/p>\n
against  the appellants.  It was further argued  that<\/p>\n
Sunita  P.W.-2,  Anita  P.W.-3,  Belabai  P.W.-5  and<\/p>\n
Kamlesh  P.W.-10, who were alleged to have  seen  the <\/p>\n
appellants in the house of appellant Ranjeet  on  the<\/p>\n
night  of  9-8-2006 did not support  the  prosecution<\/p>\n
story  and  had  turned hostile.   The  testimony  of<\/p>\n
Dhaniram P.W.-6 not being of a sterling quality could<\/p>\n
not  therefore  form  the basis  for  convicting  the<\/p>\n
appellants under Sections 449, 376(2)(g) and 302 read<\/p>\n
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.  So far  as<\/p>\n
Criminal   Reference   No.3\/2007   by   the   learned<\/p>\n
Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road under  Section <\/p>\n
366(1)  of  the  Code  is  concerned,  on  the  above<\/p>\n
premises,   Smt.   Fouzia  Mirza,   learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing  for  the  appellants\/accused  in  Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal      No.1117\/2007     argued     that      the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused were liable to be acquitted  after<\/p>\n
giving them benefit of a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
(11)  Shri  Bhaskar  Payashi,  learned  Panel  Lawyer<\/p>\n
appearing   for   the   State  in   Criminal   Appeal<\/p>\n
No.1117\/2007 and Criminal Reference No.3\/2007  argued  <\/p>\n
in  support  of  the impugned judgment and  contended<\/p>\n
that  presence  of Dhaniram P.W.-6 at  the  place  of<\/p>\n
occurrence was established by the prosecution  beyond <\/p>\n
doubt.   The  non-disclosure  of  the  occurrence  by<\/p>\n
Dhaniram P.W.-6 to anyone till recording of statement<\/p>\n
under  Section 161 of the Code by the police on 12-8-<\/p>\n
2006  is  explained by the fact that Dhaniram  P.W.-6<\/p>\n
was  a  boy of tender age of 16 years and would  have<\/p>\n
been aghast and extremely frightened after witnessing<\/p>\n
the    gruesome    rape    and    murder    by    the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  on  the  wife   of   his   master<\/p>\n
Indrajeet P.W.-1.  Besides, the evidence led  by  the<\/p>\n
prosecution  revealed  that  appellant  Ranjeet   was<\/p>\n
present  through  out when Indrajeet P.W.-1  returned<\/p>\n
home.   Similarly,  appellant  Vishwanath  had   also<\/p>\n
accompanied  the body of Rajkumari for  post  mortem.<\/p>\n
Thus, two of the appellants were constantly keeping a<\/p>\n
close watch on Dhaniram P.W.-6, who, therefore, could<\/p>\n
not  gather enough courage to disclose the commission <\/p>\n
of  offence  by  the  appellants\/accused  to  anyone.<\/p>\n
Besides, according to Dhaniram P.W.-6, he was under a <\/p>\n
threat by the appellants\/accused that if he disclosed<\/p>\n
the  incident  to anyone, they would also  kill  him,<\/p>\n
which showed that the appellants\/accused had not only<\/p>\n
intended  but  did commit murder of  Rajkumari  after<\/p>\n
committing  gang rape on her.  It was further  argued<\/p>\n
that  since Rajkumari had bled from mouth  and  nose,<\/p>\n
the  fact that presence of blood stains was confirmed<\/p>\n
on  a white piece of saree showed that the appellants<\/p>\n
had  gagged  Rajkumari by that cloth and,  therefore,<\/p>\n
she  could  not  shout while being  ravished  by  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused.  It was further  argued  that  in<\/p>\n
the examination under Section 313 of the Code and the<\/p>\n
reply  to  Question No.28, the appellants,  on  being<\/p>\n
confronted with the testimony of Dhaniram P.W.-6, did<\/p>\n
not deny that they had gone to the house of Indrajeet<\/p>\n
P.W.-1  at  night  but merely showed  ignorance.   As<\/p>\n
regards   the  testimony  of  Indrajeet   P.W.-1   in<\/p>\n
paragraph 10 referred above in paragraph 10 supra, it<\/p>\n
was  argued  that  Dhaniram P.W.-6 and  Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer R.P.Ahirwar Sub-Divisional Officer of  Police<\/p>\n
P.W.-15  were not confronted with it by the  defence.<\/p>\n
While    deriving   support   from   Modi’s   Medical<\/p>\n
Jurisprudence  and Toxicology (Twenty-Third  Edition,<\/p>\n
Editors   Shri  K.  Mathiharan  and  Shri  Amrit   K.<\/p>\n
Patnaik),  it  was  argued that  asphyxial  death  of<\/p>\n
Rajkumari  due  to throttling was clearly  proved  in<\/p>\n
view  of  the  finding that petechial haemorrhage  of<\/p>\n
lungs  was  present, right chamber  was  filled  with<\/p>\n
blood  while left chamber was empty and bloody  froth<\/p>\n
was emerging from nostrils and mouth.  During autopsy<\/p>\n
the  hands of the deceased were not clenched  because <\/p>\n
Rigor Mortis had passed away in the upper limbs.   It<\/p>\n
was  argued  that if the windpipe was not  completely<\/p>\n
closed, then by application of pressure on the throat<\/p>\n
bleeding would occur from the mouth and nostrils  and<\/p>\n
death  may  not be instantaneous, but may be  delayed<\/p>\n
and   the   person   would  be  rendered   insensible<\/p>\n
thereafter.   So  far  as the confirmation  of  death<\/p>\n
penalty is concerned, it was argued that the gruesome<\/p>\n
rape  and murder of the hapless sister-in-law on  the<\/p>\n
Rakshabandhan  Day by the brother-in-law  in  concert<\/p>\n
with  three  other co-accused was  one  of  the  most<\/p>\n
aggravating  circumstances which  would  justify  the<\/p>\n
extreme  penalty,  i.e.,  death  sentence.   It   was<\/p>\n
further argued that the act of the appellants\/accused<\/p>\n
was premeditated since before commission of rape they <\/p>\n
had  assembled in the house of appellant Ranjeet  and<\/p>\n
had  consumed liquor.  The manner in which a  hapless<\/p>\n
young married woman with two minor children was raped <\/p>\n
and  murdered by the appellants\/accused in her house,<\/p>\n
the  case  squarely  fell into the  category  of  the<\/p>\n
rarest  of  rare cases and, therefore, death  penalty<\/p>\n
awarded  by  the  learned Additional Sessions  Judge,<\/p>\n
Pendra   Road  was  wholly  justified  and   deserved<\/p>\n
confirmation by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\n(12) Dr. Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
respondents  No.1 and 3\/accused namely Ramnaresh  and    <\/p>\n
Amar  Singh in Criminal Reference No.3\/2007, replying<\/p>\n
to  the  death reference, argued that the conduct  of<\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6, the solitary witness was  unnatural<\/p>\n
inasmuch  as  he did not disclose the  names  of  the<\/p>\n
respondents\/accused to anyone for  2  days.   Learned<\/p>\n
counsel   further  argued  that  the   testimony   of<\/p>\n
Sugaribai P.W.-12 did not disclose that when Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  informed her, he was perplexed or  was  in  a<\/p>\n
state of shock.  It was further argued that according<\/p>\n
to  Dhaniram P.W.-6 the offence had occurred sometime <\/p>\n
before  midnight whereafter he had informed Sugaribai<\/p>\n
P.W.-12   and  the  testimony  of  Sugaribai  P.W.-12<\/p>\n
revealed that Dhaniram P.W.-6 had informed her  at  3<\/p>\n
A.M.  Thus, there is material contradiction regarding<\/p>\n
the  time  when  Dhaniram  P.W.-6  actually  informed<\/p>\n
Sugaribai  P.W.-12.  If  the respondents\/accused  had<\/p>\n
committed  the gruesome rape and murder of Rajkumari, <\/p>\n
they  would not have asked Dhaniram P.W.-6 to  inform<\/p>\n
Sugaribai  P.W.-12, but would have simply  threatened<\/p>\n
him  to  keep  quiet.  It was also  argued  that  the<\/p>\n
testimony  of  Indrajeet  P.W.-1  revealed  that  his<\/p>\n
brother  Harjeet  Prasad  (which  according  to  Shri<\/p>\n
Bhaskar  Payashi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing  for<\/p>\n
the  State  is a typographical error while  recording<\/p>\n
evidence  and  should  have been  Ranjeet)  was  also<\/p>\n
present  at the house on the date of occurrence,  but<\/p>\n
during   investigation  the  whereabouts  of  Harjeet<\/p>\n
Prasad were not explored.  It was further argued that<\/p>\n
the  delay  of  2  days  in  recording  statement  of<\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6 rendered his testimony  unworthy  of<\/p>\n
credit.   The  prosecution had  miserably  failed  to<\/p>\n
prove that the respondents\/accused had been medically <\/p>\n
examined to find out traces of skin in their nails or<\/p>\n
to  prove that they were potent and capable of sexual<\/p>\n
intercourse.   Breach  of Section  53A  of  the  Code<\/p>\n
during investigation was thus a serious lacuna, which<\/p>\n
created a serious dent in the prosecution story.  The<\/p>\n
testimony  of Dhaniram P.W.-6 would reveal  that  the<\/p>\n
needle  of suspicion for being involved in commission<\/p>\n
of  the  offence also revolved around him.   It  was,<\/p>\n
therefore,  incumbent upon the investigating  officer<\/p>\n
to  have got the pattern of nails of Dhaniram  P.W.-6<\/p>\n
examined during investigation.  Learned counsel  also<\/p>\n
submitted that conduct of respondent\/accused  Ranjeet<\/p>\n
in  being present through out on the following day on<\/p>\n
arrival   of  Indrajeet  P.W.-1  at  the   place   of<\/p>\n
occurrence  also ruled out his participation  in  the<\/p>\n
crime.  The fact that the police had on 19-9-2006 got<\/p>\n
the  statement  under Section  164  of  the  Code  of<\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6 recorded would go to show  that  the<\/p>\n
police  wanted  to  pin  him down  to  the  statement<\/p>\n
recorded  under  Section 161 of the  Code  per  force<\/p>\n
while  detaining him in the lock-up.  Learned counsel<\/p>\n
argued  that  the  possibility that Dhaniram  P.W.-6,<\/p>\n
whose presence at the scene of occurrence was not  in<\/p>\n
dispute,  had committed rape and murder of  Rajkumari<\/p>\n
could not be ruled out.  It was also argued that  the<\/p>\n
prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the<\/p>\n
respondents\/accused beyond the shadow of doubt and in  <\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances awarding death penalty to<\/p>\n
the   respondents\/accused  was  wholly  uncalled  for<\/p>\n
because  the  case did not fall into the category  of<\/p>\n
the rarest of rare cases.\n<\/p>\n
\n(13) Shri Arun Kochar, learned counsel appearing  for<\/p>\n
respondents  No.2  and  4\/accused  namely  Vishwanath  <\/p>\n
Singh   and   Ranjeet  Kewat  in  Criminal  Reference<\/p>\n
No.3\/2007  adopted  the  arguments  advanced  by  Dr.<\/p>\n
Rajesh  Pandey, learned counsel for respondents  No.1<\/p>\n
and 3\/accused namely Ramnaresh and Amar Singh.    <\/p>\n
(14) Having considered the rival submissions, we have<\/p>\n
perused the record with utmost circumspection.  There<\/p>\n
is  absolutely no material on record to show that the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused Ramnaresh, Vishwanath Singh,  Amar   <\/p>\n
Singh  and Ranjeet Kewat had consumed liquor  in  the<\/p>\n
house of appellant Ranjeet prior to commission of the<\/p>\n
offence.  Sunita P.W.-2, Anita P.W.-3, Belabai P.W.-5<\/p>\n
and  Kamlesh  P.W.-10  turned  hostile  and  did  not<\/p>\n
support the prosecution story.  Even Dhaniram  P.W.-6<\/p>\n
did   not  depose  that  the  appellants\/accused  had<\/p>\n
consumed  liquor  in the house of  appellant  Ranjeet<\/p>\n
before  commission  of the offence.   Sunita  P.W.-2,<\/p>\n
Anita P.W.-3, Belabai P.W.-5 and Kamlesh P.W.-10  did  <\/p>\n
not  depose that the appellants\/accused had assembled <\/p>\n
at  the  house of appellant Ranjeet while  they  were<\/p>\n
watching    television    with    Rajkumari.     Only<\/p>\n
circumstantial   evidence   available   against   the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  is  the  opinion  given  by   the<\/p>\n
Forensic  Science Laboratory, Raipur  in  the  report<\/p>\n
Ex.P-23,  whereby  presence of  blood  on  the  shirt<\/p>\n
Article  B of appellant Ranjeet, underwears  Articles<\/p>\n
C, D and E of appellants Vishwanath Singh, Amar Singh <\/p>\n
and  Ramnaresh  respectively  and  the  presence   of<\/p>\n
seminal  stains and human spermatozoa on  the  slides <\/p>\n
H1,  I1,  J1  and  K1  of the appellants\/accused  was<\/p>\n
confirmed.  However, the prosecution did not  produce<\/p>\n
report   of   the   medical   examination   of    the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  and  also  did  not  examine  the<\/p>\n
doctor  who  had prepared their seminal slides.   The<\/p>\n
seizure  memo  Ex.P-13 does not, in any manner,  show  <\/p>\n
that the slides were seminal slides.  Thus, there  is<\/p>\n
no  evidence as to who had prepared the slides of the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  and when.   Blood  group  of  the<\/p>\n
stains  found  on the shirt `Article B’ of  appellant<\/p>\n
Ranjeet was not matched with the blood group  of  the<\/p>\n
deceased.   Serological test  was  not  performed  to<\/p>\n
prove  that blood found on the shirt `Article B’  was<\/p>\n
human  blood.  By any stretch of imagination  if  the<\/p>\n
seminal slides were prepared on the date when seized,<\/p>\n
i.e., on 19-8-2006, it would, in no manner, show  the<\/p>\n
complicity   of   the   appellants\/accused   in   the<\/p>\n
commission of rape on Rajkumari on 9-8-2006. <\/p>\n
(15) The memo Ex.P-21 of the Senior Superintendent of<\/p>\n
Police,  Bilaspur  clearly  shows  that  the  seminal<\/p>\n
slides  of  the appellants\/accused had been preserved<\/p>\n
after they were medically examined.  It is true  that<\/p>\n
the   prosecution   did  not  produce   the   medical<\/p>\n
examination  report  of  the  appellants\/accused   as<\/p>\n
contemplated  by Section 53A of the  Code.   However,<\/p>\n
neither in their examination under Section 313 of the<\/p>\n
Code nor in their defence the appellants\/accused took<\/p>\n
the  plea  that  they were impotent or  incapable  of<\/p>\n
sexual  intercourse.  Kamla D.W.-2, wife of appellant<\/p>\n
Ranjeet  also did not state anything in this  regard.<\/p>\n
Had  the  appellants\/accused taken the  defence  that<\/p>\n
they were impotent or incapable of sexual intercourse<\/p>\n
then  non-compliance of Section 53A of the Code could<\/p>\n
have  enured to their benefit.  In this view  of  the<\/p>\n
matter,  in the absence of any specific defence  that<\/p>\n
the appellants\/accused were impotent or incapable  of<\/p>\n
sexual intercourse, non-production of report of their<\/p>\n
medical examination and non-examination of the doctor<\/p>\n
conducting   the   medical   examination    of    the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  would  not  be   fatal   to   the<\/p>\n
prosecution.   The argument of Shri Bhaskar  Payashi,<\/p>\n
learned Panel Lawyer for the State that as the  names<\/p>\n
of  the appellants\/accused were disclosed by Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  as  late  as 12-8-2006, the possibility  that<\/p>\n
during  this period due to bathing and cleaning  etc.<\/p>\n
by   the  appellants\/accused  the  evidence   as   to<\/p>\n
commission   of  the  offence  of  rape  would   have<\/p>\n
disappeared  and,  therefore, non-production  of  the<\/p>\n
report     of    medical    examination    of     the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused was not fatal to the  prosecution,<\/p>\n
is  well  merited.  Under Section  53A  of  the  Code<\/p>\n
during  investigation the medical  examination  of  a<\/p>\n
person  accused  of  rape would be non-productive  if<\/p>\n
there  are  no reasonable grounds for believing  that<\/p>\n
such medical examination would afford evidence as  to<\/p>\n
the  commission of such offence.  Since  the  seminal<\/p>\n
stains and traces of skin in the nails, if any, would<\/p>\n
have  disappeared due to bathing and cleaning  for  3<\/p>\n
days,  it  cannot be said that there were  reasonable<\/p>\n
grounds for the investigating officer to believe that<\/p>\n
production  of  the report of medical examination  of<\/p>\n
the  appellants\/accused would afford evidence  as  to<\/p>\n
the commission of rape.  It is also pertinent to note<\/p>\n
that despite there being no material to show that the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  were  medically   examined,   the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  did  not  take  the   plea   till<\/p>\n
culmination  of the trial that they were impotent  or<\/p>\n
incapable  of  sexual intercourse.  To reiterate,  in<\/p>\n
the   facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  non-<\/p>\n
production  of  the report of medical examination  of<\/p>\n
the appellants\/accused would not enure to the benefit<\/p>\n
of      the     appellants\/accused     since      the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused did not take the  plea  that  they<\/p>\n
were impotent or incapable of sexual intercourse.<\/p>\n
(16)  The findings and opinion recorded by Dr. Sheela<\/p>\n
Saha  P.W.-7 after conducting the autopsy on the body<\/p>\n
of  the  deceased  Rajkumari have been  mentioned  in<\/p>\n
paragraph 6 supra which are fully established by  her<\/p>\n
wholly  unrebutted testimony and proves beyond  doubt<\/p>\n
that  gang rape was committed on Rajkumari  and  that<\/p>\n
thereafter  she had died a homicidal  death.   It  is<\/p>\n
pertinent to note that Dhaniram P.W.-6 was not at all<\/p>\n
confronted  by  the defence with his statement  under<\/p>\n
Section 161 of the Code.  It is well settled that the<\/p>\n
statement of a witness recorded under Section 161  of<\/p>\n
the  Code  can  be  used  only  for  the  purpose  of<\/p>\n
contradicting the witness or for proving an  omission<\/p>\n
therein  and  for no other purpose.  It is  thus  not<\/p>\n
permissible  under  law  to  read  any  part  of  the<\/p>\n
statement  of a witness recorded by the police  under<\/p>\n
Section  161 of the Code unless the witness has  been<\/p>\n
confronted   during   cross-examination   with    his<\/p>\n
statement to the police. The substantive evidence  of<\/p>\n
a  witness  is  his testimony before a Court  of  law<\/p>\n
during trial.\n<\/p>\n
\n(17)  Dhaniram  P.W.-6  deposed  that  while  he  was<\/p>\n
watching  television  at  about  10-11  P.M.  in  the<\/p>\n
Parchhi,  all  the  appellants\/accused  arrived   and<\/p>\n
hurling filthy abuses told him that they would commit<\/p>\n
rape on Rajkumari and brought him from the Parchhi to<\/p>\n
the  courtyard.  Appellants Ramnaresh and Amar  Singh <\/p>\n
held  him  in  the  courtyard  while  Vishwanath  and<\/p>\n
Ranjeet   went  in  the  room  where  Rajkumari   was<\/p>\n
sleeping.   Vishwanath and Ranjeet emerged  from  the<\/p>\n
room after half an hour and thereafter Ramnaresh  and<\/p>\n
Amar   Singh  went  inside  the  room.   It  is  very<\/p>\n
important  to  notice that Dhaniram  P.W.-6  did  not<\/p>\n
depose  that Vishwanath and Ranjeet had held  him  in<\/p>\n
the  courtyard  while Ramnaresh and  Amar  Singh  had <\/p>\n
entered the room where Rajkumari was sleeping.  It is<\/p>\n
also very important to notice that during inquest  by<\/p>\n
Head Constable Jagmohan Panna P.W.-14 he had found  a    <\/p>\n
white piece of saree having blood like stains by  the<\/p>\n
side  of the dead body of Rajkumari. There is an  old<\/p>\n
saying  that witnesses may lie, but circumstances  do<\/p>\n
not.   The  autopsy report Ex.P-12 proves that  blood<\/p>\n
mixed  froth had oozed from the nostril and mouth  of<\/p>\n
Rajkumari,  abrasions and scratch mark  were  present<\/p>\n
around the neck and petechial haemorrhage was present  <\/p>\n
in  both  lungs,  which according to  Modi’s  Medical<\/p>\n
Jurisprudence and Toxicology are positive indications<\/p>\n
of  asphyxial death. There is no room for  any  doubt<\/p>\n
that  the  appellants\/accused had used the  piece  of<\/p>\n
saree for gagging the mouth of Rajkumari at the  time<\/p>\n
of  commission of rape, which is precisely the reason<\/p>\n
why  Rajkumari could not shout.  Dhaniram P.W.-6  did<\/p>\n
not  depose  as  to  what appellants  Vishwanath  and<\/p>\n
Ranjeet did after appellants Ramnaresh and Amar Singh <\/p>\n
entered  the room.  He deposed that after  appellants<\/p>\n
Ramnaresh and Amar Singh came out of the room all the  <\/p>\n
four  appellants\/accused  had  threatened  that  they<\/p>\n
would  also kill him if he disclosed the incident  to<\/p>\n
anyone.   His  testimony in paragraph 3  that  before<\/p>\n
visiting  the  house of Rajkumari all the  appellants<\/p>\n
had  assembled at the house of appellant Ranjeet  and<\/p>\n
consumed  liquor  is  wholly  unrebutted  in   cross-<\/p>\n
examination  as nothing has been elicited  in  cross-<\/p>\n
examination to discredit this testimony.   In  cross-<\/p>\n
examination, the defence even did not deny the  above<\/p>\n
assertion  made  by  Dhaniram P.W.-6.   Testimony  of<\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6 that all the four appellants\/accused<\/p>\n
had  threatened that they would also kill him  if  he<\/p>\n
disclosed  the  incident to anyone has also  remained<\/p>\n
unrebutted in cross-examination.  Dhaniram P.W.-6 was <\/p>\n
not  at  all  confronted  with  his  statement  under<\/p>\n
Section  161  of  the Code.  Dhaniram P.W.-6  deposed<\/p>\n
that before going to inform Sugaribai P.W.-12, he had<\/p>\n
seen a glimpse of the body of Rajkumari lying covered<\/p>\n
on  the  cot.  Considering the testimony of  Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  in  its  totality there does not  remain  any<\/p>\n
doubt   that   the  appellants\/accused   had,   after<\/p>\n
committing  gang rape on Rajkumari throttled  her  to<\/p>\n
death  and  had only thereafter threatened   Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  that they would also kill him if he disclosed<\/p>\n
the incident to anyone.\n<\/p>\n
\n(18)  The  testimony  of  Sugaribai  P.W.-12  further<\/p>\n
proves that on reaching the house of Indrajeet P.W.-1<\/p>\n
upon  information received from Dhaniram P.W.-6,  she<\/p>\n
saw  that  Rajkumari was lying dead on the cot.   Her<\/p>\n
hair and clothes were untidy.  Bangles of a hand  and<\/p>\n
an  ear ring were missing.  The blouse was raised and<\/p>\n
her body was covered by a blanket.  She also saw that<\/p>\n
impressions of fingers and thumb were present on  the<\/p>\n
throat  of  Rajkumari.   Blood  had  oozed  from  her<\/p>\n
private  parts.  Testimony of Dr. Sheela Saha  P.W.-7<\/p>\n
proves beyond doubt that there were two abrasions  of<\/p>\n
the  size 0.5″x0.5″ with scratch mark by nails  below<\/p>\n
the  angle  of  right mandible just in front  of  the<\/p>\n
sterno  cleado  mastoid muscle with  another  scratch<\/p>\n
mark  1″  in length present above it.  There  was  an<\/p>\n
abrasion on the left side of neck below the angle  of<\/p>\n
mandible  to  mastoid process with  scratch  mark  as<\/p>\n
shown  in  the  diagram drawn by her.  There  was  an<\/p>\n
abrasion  in  the  thigh  of  size  of  1″x0.5″  with<\/p>\n
contusion  1″x1″  present on both medial  aspects  of<\/p>\n
thigh.  There were lacerations with abrasions 3 to  4<\/p>\n
in  number  over perineum with blood mixed discharge.<\/p>\n
Eyes and mouth were semi-open.  Blood mixed froth had  <\/p>\n
oozed  from  the  nostril and mouth.  These  findings<\/p>\n
leave    no    room   for   any   doubt   that    the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  had  throttled  Rajkumari   after<\/p>\n
commission  of  gang  rape on her.   So  far  as  the<\/p>\n
absence of a finding that there was fracture  of  the<\/p>\n
hyoid  bone is concerned, according to Modi’s Medical<\/p>\n
Jurisprudence  and  Toxicology  the  hyoid  bone  and<\/p>\n
superior cornuae of the thyroid cartilage are not, as<\/p>\n
a  rule,  fractured in a case of death by throttling.<\/p>\n
All   the   appellants\/accused  shared   the   common<\/p>\n
intention  to  commit murder of Rajkumari,  which  is<\/p>\n
also  borne out from the fact that after causing  the<\/p>\n
death  of  Rajkumari, all the four appellants\/accused<\/p>\n
had asked Dhaniram P.W.-6 that he should not disclose <\/p>\n
the  incident to anyone or else they would also  kill<\/p>\n
him.   The  exact words used by Dhaniram P.W.-6  need <\/p>\n
reproduction. He deposed in paragraph 2 that “eSa  ml<\/p>\n
le;  jktdqekjh ds ?kj ds ijNh esa Vhoh ns[k  jgk  Fkk<\/p>\n
rks  pkjksa  vfHk0x.k  vk;s vkSj  eq>s  ekWa  cgu  dh<\/p>\n
xkfy;ka  nsrs gq, cksys fd jktdqekjh ds lkFk  cykRdkj<\/p>\n
djsaxs  vkSj  eq>s  ?kj  ds  vkaxu  esa  fudky  fn;sA<\/p>\n
…………..   eSa vkaxu esa  gh  Fkk  A  mlds  ckn<\/p>\n
pkjksa  vkjksih eq>s cksys fd fdlh dks ?kVuk ds  ckjs<\/p>\n
esa  er crkuk ugha rks rq>s Hkh ekj nsaxsA” (emphasis <\/p>\n
supplied by me)  It is wholly immaterial as to  which<\/p>\n
of    the   appellants\/accused   actually   throttled<\/p>\n
Rajkumari    to    death   since   all    the    four<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  shared the  common  intention  to<\/p>\n
commit  murder after committing gang rape  with  her.<\/p>\n
Obviously, none of the appellants\/accused would  have<\/p>\n
wanted  Rajkumari to be alive since  she  would  have<\/p>\n
named  them  as the persons who had gang  raped  her. <\/p>\n
Thus,   all  the  four  appellants\/accused  had   the<\/p>\n
requisite  intention  required under  law  to  commit<\/p>\n
murder  of Rajkumari in furtherance of which  all  of<\/p>\n
them  or  some of them throttled Rajkumari  to  death<\/p>\n
after  committing  gang  rape  with  her.   All   the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  had  threatened  Dhaniram  P.W.-6 <\/p>\n
that  they would also kill him (emphasis supplied  by<\/p>\n
me)  if  he  disclosed the incident to  anyone  which<\/p>\n
shows  that while committing murder of Rajkumari  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  were  acting  in  furtherance  of<\/p>\n
their common intention.  Thus, absence of evidence as<\/p>\n
to which of the appellants\/accused actually throttled<\/p>\n
Rajkumari  to  death does not, in any manner,  either<\/p>\n
dilute  the  guilt  of  the appellants\/accused  under<\/p>\n
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian  Penal<\/p>\n
Code  or justify imposition of the lesser penalty  on<\/p>\n
them.  Thus, the testimony of Dhaniram P.W.-6 an  eye <\/p>\n
witness, medical evidence of Dr. Sheela Saha  P.W.-7,<\/p>\n
the  findings recorded in the memo of inquest  Ex.P-3<\/p>\n
and  the testimony of Sugaribai P.W-12 leave no  room<\/p>\n
for  any doubt that the appellants\/accused had, after<\/p>\n
committing house trespass with intent to commit  gang<\/p>\n
rape  and  murder of Rajkumari, committed  gang  rape<\/p>\n
with  her  and  committed her  murder  thereafter  by<\/p>\n
throttling her.\n<\/p>\n
\n(19)  The question which arises for our consideration<\/p>\n
now is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Pendra   Road   was  justified  in   convicting   the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused under Sections 449, 376(2)(g)  and<\/p>\n
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code  on<\/p>\n
the basis of the sole testimony of Dhaniram P.W.-6, a<\/p>\n
lad aged 16 years.\n<\/p>\n
\n(20)  The  law  is well settled that  the  Court  may<\/p>\n
convict on the basis of the testimony of a single eye<\/p>\n
witness,  but  the Court must be satisfied  that  the<\/p>\n
testimony  of  the solitary eye witness  is  of  such<\/p>\n
sterling quality that it is safe to base a conviction<\/p>\n
solely  on the testimony of such witness.   In  doing<\/p>\n
so,  the  Court  must  test the  credibility  of  the<\/p>\n
witness  by reference to the quality of his evidence.<\/p>\n
The  evidence of such witness must be free  from  any<\/p>\n
blemish  or suspicion and must impress the  Court  as<\/p>\n
wholly  truthful  and so convincing  that  the  Court<\/p>\n
would  have  no hesitation in recording a  conviction<\/p>\n
solely  on the testimony of such witness.  In  Joseph<\/p>\n
vs.  State  of Kerala,<\/a> (2003) 1 SCC 465, the  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court of India held as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “When  there  is  a  sole  witness  to  the
\n     incident  his evidence has to  be  accepted
\n     with an amount of caution and after testing
\n     it   on  the  touchstone  of  the  evidence
\n     tendered by other witnesses or evidence  as
\n     recorded.    Section  134  of  the   Indian
\n     Evidence  Act  provides that no  particular
\n     number  of witnesses shall in any  case  be
\n     required  for  the proof of any  fact  and,
\n     therefore, it is permissible for a court to
\n     record  and  sustain a  conviction  on  the
\n     evidence of a solitary eyewitness.  But, at
\n     the same time, such a course can be adopted
\n     only  if  the  evidence  tendered  by  such
\n     witness  is  cogent, reliable and  in  tune
\n     with  probabilities and  inspires  implicit
\n     confidence.   By  this standard,  when  the
\n     prosecution case rests mainly on  the  sole
\n     testimony  of an eyewitness, it  should  be
\n     wholly reliable.”<\/p>\n
(21) We shall now undertake a very close scrutiny  of<\/p>\n
the  evidence  of  Dhaniram P.W.-6  with  a  view  to<\/p>\n
ascertain whether it is of such sterling quality that<\/p>\n
the  conviction  of  the appellants\/accused  for  the<\/p>\n
offence of house trespass, gang rape and murder could<\/p>\n
safely rest on it.\n<\/p>\n
\n(22) The presence of Dhaniram P.W.-6 at the scene  of<\/p>\n
occurrence  is  beyond doubt.  He is the  servant  of<\/p>\n
Indrajeet P.W.-1 and also works for appellant Ranjeet<\/p>\n
as  narrated by his wife Kamla D.W.-2.  Kamla  D.W.-2<\/p>\n
has  clearly  mentioned that alias name  of  Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  is  Rottam.  It has been argued  by  all  the<\/p>\n
learned      counsel      appearing      for      the<\/p>\n
appellants\/respondents\/accused Ramnaresh,  Vishwanath   <\/p>\n
Singh,  Amar  Singh  and Ranjeet  Kewat  in  Criminal<\/p>\n
Appeal  No.1117\/2007 and Criminal Reference No.3\/2007  <\/p>\n
that  the  possibility of Dhaniram P.W.-6  committing<\/p>\n
rape  and murder of Rajkumari and falsely implicating<\/p>\n
the appellants\/respondents\/accused could not be ruled<\/p>\n
out.   Thus, the presence of Dhaniram P.W.-6  at  the<\/p>\n
place  of  occurrence  at  the  time  of  offence  is<\/p>\n
unquestionable.\n<\/p>\n
\n(23) Rajkumari was a married woman aged 24 years  and  <\/p>\n
had two children sleeping by her side.  The testimony<\/p>\n
of   Dhaniram  P.W.-6  in  paragraph  8  shows   that<\/p>\n
occasionally Sugaribai P.W.-12 used to sleep  at  the<\/p>\n
house  of Rajkumari in the absence of Indrajeet P.W.-<\/p>\n
1,  but on the date of occurrence, she did not  come.<\/p>\n
He  further deposed that he had gone to sleep at  the<\/p>\n
house  of  Rajkumari because she had met him  at  the<\/p>\n
shop  and  had  asked  him to  sleep  at  the  house.<\/p>\n
Dhaniram   P.W.-6  is  a  young  boy  of  16   years.<\/p>\n
Stretching  our imagination to the farthest,  we  are<\/p>\n
unable  to  accept the argument of the  defence  that<\/p>\n
possibly  Dhaniram  P.W.-6  had  committed  rape  and<\/p>\n
murder of Rajkumari.\n<\/p>\n
\n(24)  If Dhaniram P.W.-6 alone had committed rape  on<\/p>\n
Rajkumari,  there would have been a struggle  between<\/p>\n
them  as the 24 years old Rajkumari, a mother of  two<\/p>\n
children  who  were sleeping by her side,  would  not<\/p>\n
have  allowed Dhaniram P.W.-6 to have an easy go with <\/p>\n
her.   She would have resisted by scratching Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  and resisting to the maximum.  Her hands  and <\/p>\n
feet  would  have been free to resist and  defend  if<\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6  alone had attempted  rape  on  her.<\/p>\n
Injuries,  scratch  marks would have  been  found  on<\/p>\n
Dhaniram P.W.-6.  Had Dhaniram P.W.-6 committed  rape   <\/p>\n
and  murder of Rajkumari, he would not have  gone  to<\/p>\n
inform  Sugaribai  P.W.-12 that Rajkumari  would  not<\/p>\n
awake  from sleep.  He would have disappeared.  After<\/p>\n
Sunita  P.W.-2, Anita P.W.-3 and Belabai P.W.-5  left<\/p>\n
the  house  after watching television, he  would  not<\/p>\n
have  waited till 11-12 P.M. if Rajkumari had already<\/p>\n
slept  at 9:30 P.M.  Thus, while presence of Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  at the time and place of occurrence is proved<\/p>\n
beyond  doubt,  the possibility that  he  might  have<\/p>\n
committed  rape and murder of Rajkumari  is,  in  our<\/p>\n
considered  opinion,  not even the  remotest  by  the<\/p>\n
farthest stretch of our imagination.\n<\/p>\n
\n(25)  Indrajeet P.W.-1 deposed in paragraph  10  that<\/p>\n
the  shining material of the bangles of his wife  was<\/p>\n
noticed  by  him  on the right side of  the  body  of<\/p>\n
Dhaniram P.W.-6.  He further narrated that while they<\/p>\n
were  cleaning  the  house and the  room,  pieces  of<\/p>\n
bangles  were  found in a box, which Dhaniram  P.W.-6<\/p>\n
had  collected in the box.  However, Dhaniram  P.W.-6<\/p>\n
was  not at all confronted with this evidence by  the<\/p>\n
defence.   It  appears  that  Indrajeet  P.W.-1   was<\/p>\n
completely  misled  by the skillful cross-examination<\/p>\n
by  the  defence  as it would be impossible  for  any<\/p>\n
human  being to identify the shining material of  the<\/p>\n
bangles   of  his  wife  on  the  body  of   another.<\/p>\n
Panchnama  of  the dead body Ex.P-3  shows  that  the <\/p>\n
bangles of only the right hand and not the left  hand<\/p>\n
were  found broken and the bangles were lying by  the<\/p>\n
side of Rajkumari on the bed.  Thus, it is not a case<\/p>\n
where  there was a struggle with Rajkumari  all  over<\/p>\n
the place where she was sleeping so as to scatter the<\/p>\n
pieces  of  her bangles all over.  The  testimony  of<\/p>\n
Indrajeet  P.W.-1 in paragraph 10 would clearly  show<\/p>\n
that  it  is  only after the holding of  inquest  and<\/p>\n
removing  of the dead body, the cleaning of the  room<\/p>\n
would  have  taken  place.   Being  the  servant,  if<\/p>\n
Dhaniram P.W.-6 had found some bangles and kept  them   <\/p>\n
in a box, it would not, by any stretch of imagination<\/p>\n
raise  any  suspicion of Dhaniram  P.W.-6  being  the<\/p>\n
perpetrator of the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\n(26)  If  Dhaniram  P.W.-6, a lad of  16  years,  had<\/p>\n
committed  the gruesome rape and murder of  Rajkumari <\/p>\n
alone,  he  would not have been able to maintain  his<\/p>\n
equilibrium  so  as to calmly stay at  the  house  of<\/p>\n
Sugaribai  P.W.-12 till she returned  after  visiting<\/p>\n
the place of occurrence and then work at the house of<\/p>\n
Indrajeet  P.W.-1 the very next day when  the  police<\/p>\n
held the inquest.\n<\/p>\n
\n(27)  The  defence did not ask a single  question  to<\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6  in  his  entire  cross-examination,<\/p>\n
which  would  indicate that he had any axe  to  grind<\/p>\n
against  the  appellants\/accused or bore  any  grudge<\/p>\n
against  them.   No  reason has  been  shown  by  the<\/p>\n
defence  as  to why Dhaniram P.W.-6 would shield  the<\/p>\n
real culprit and implicate the appellants\/accused, if<\/p>\n
they  were  innocent.   Kamla  D.W.-2,  the  wife  of<\/p>\n
appellant Ranjeet also did not divulge any reason  as<\/p>\n
to  why  Dhaniram P.W.-6 would falsely implicate  her<\/p>\n
husband.  She deposed that at 3-4 A.M., Rottam  alias<\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6 had knocked at her door and informed <\/p>\n
her  that  Rajkumari was unconscious.  She thereafter<\/p>\n
sent  Dhaniram  P.W.-6 to inform  Sugaribai  P.W.-12.<\/p>\n
This  conduct  of  Dhaniram  P.W.-6  also  completely<\/p>\n
belies the possibility of his involvement in the rape<\/p>\n
and murder of Rajkumari.\n<\/p>\n
\n(28) The delay in recording the statement of Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  under Section 161 of the Code has been  blown <\/p>\n
out of proportion by the defence.  Dhaniram P.W.-6 is<\/p>\n
a  lad  of 16 years.  The learned trial Judge rightly<\/p>\n
relied  on  the observation of the Supreme  Court  in<\/p>\n
Narayan Singh and others vs. State of M.P., AIR  1985<\/p>\n
SC 1678 that it is not uncommon for persons when they <\/p>\n
see a ghastly and dastardly murder being committed in<\/p>\n
their  presence that they almost lose their sense  of<\/p>\n
balance  and remain dumb founded until they are  able<\/p>\n
to  compose themselves.  This is precisely what  must<\/p>\n
have  happened  to Dhaniram P.W.-6 when  he  saw  the <\/p>\n
hapless  wife  of his master Indrajeet  P.W.-1  being<\/p>\n
gang  raped and murdered by his master’s brother  and<\/p>\n
three   other  able  bodied  appellants\/accused   who<\/p>\n
threatened to kill him.\n<\/p>\n
\n(29) Dhaniram P.W.-6 made no effort to flee from  the<\/p>\n
place   of   occurrence  but  remained  present   and<\/p>\n
available  through out.  He kept mum  when  asked  by<\/p>\n
Indrajeet P.W.-1 and Sugaribai P.W.-12 and  the  merg<\/p>\n
intimation by Indrajeet P.W.-1 also did not  disclose<\/p>\n
suspicion   on  anyone.   Nobody  tried  to   falsely<\/p>\n
implicate anyone.  Even during inquest, suspicion was<\/p>\n
not  raised on anyone since the actual culprits  were<\/p>\n
not known.  It is only in the statement under Section<\/p>\n
161  of  the  Code of Indrajeet P.W.-1  that  he  had<\/p>\n
pointed  a  mere  suspicion on  one  Bhupendra,  whom<\/p>\n
Rajkumari had married 3 years before he married  her.<\/p>\n
Investigating   Officer  R.P.Ahirwar   Sub-Divisional<\/p>\n
Officer of Police P.W.-15 has deposed in paragraph  7<\/p>\n
that the suspicion raised by Indrajeet P.W.-1 was not<\/p>\n
found   to  be  true  during  investigation.    Since<\/p>\n
Dhaniram P.W.-6 was undoubtedly present at the  scene  <\/p>\n
of  occurrence and did not divulge the names  of  the<\/p>\n
real  culprits, he was detained at the police station<\/p>\n
and  probably  given  some  beating  by  the  police.<\/p>\n
Placed  in  such  a  situation a person  even  though<\/p>\n
innocent,  on  being called by the  police  would  be<\/p>\n
scared  and  apprehensive of the  likelihood  of  his<\/p>\n
being  implicated  for the crime  which  he  did  not<\/p>\n
commit.   Therefore,  his statement  that  he  feared<\/p>\n
false  implication by police for the crime  which  he<\/p>\n
did  not commit is natural. The detention of Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6  at  the police station or in the  lock-up  is<\/p>\n
thus  natural  and can, by no stretch of imagination,<\/p>\n
be  taken  to raise a doubt that the police suspected<\/p>\n
his  involvement in the gruesome gang rape and murder<\/p>\n
of  Rajkumari.   If the witness, who was  undoubtedly<\/p>\n
present  at  the scene of occurrence did not  divulge<\/p>\n
the  names  of the culprits for 2 days, the treatment<\/p>\n
given by the police to Dhaniram P.W.-6 was not at all<\/p>\n
unnatural or uncalled for.  For the foregoing reasons<\/p>\n
the  mere  fact  that Dhaniram P.W.-6  disclosed  the<\/p>\n
involvement   of   the  appellants\/accused   in   the<\/p>\n
commission  of gang rape and murder of Rajkumari  for<\/p>\n
the  first  time on 12-8-2006 does not in any  manner<\/p>\n
render him unworthy of credit.\n<\/p>\n
\n(30) So far as the statement of Dhaniram P.W.-6 under<\/p>\n
Section  164  of  the Code recorded by  the  Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate  First  Class, Bilaspur  on  19-9-2006  is<\/p>\n
concerned, suffice it to say that Dhaniram P.W.-6 was<\/p>\n
the  sole  eye witness to the gruesome gang rape  and<\/p>\n
murder    of    Rajkumari   and   had    named    the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused for the first time on 12-8-2006 in<\/p>\n
his   statement  under  Section  161  of  the   Code.<\/p>\n
Considering  his  age  and the threat  given  by  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  and to rule out  the  possibility<\/p>\n
that  he  would  retract  from  his  statement  under<\/p>\n
Section  161, the police must have got his  statement<\/p>\n
under  Section  164  recorded  before  a  Magistrate.<\/p>\n
However,  no  inference can  be  drawn  that  he  was<\/p>\n
compelled by the police to depose under pressure.  In<\/p>\n
any  case, since Dhaniram P.W.-6 did not resile  from<\/p>\n
his   statement   under  Section  161   and   deposed<\/p>\n
truthfully against the appellants\/accused before  the<\/p>\n
trial Court, his statement under Section 164 is of no<\/p>\n
avail  to the defence especially because the  defence<\/p>\n
did not contradict Dhaniram P.W.-6 from his statement<\/p>\n
under  Section 164.  A perusal of the statement under<\/p>\n
Section 164 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First<\/p>\n
Class,  Bilaspur on 19-9-2006 also goes to show  that<\/p>\n
it  was  not recorded in conformity with law  because<\/p>\n
the  Magistrate did not append beneath the  statement<\/p>\n
the  essential certificate that she had explained  to<\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6  that he is  not  bound  to  make  a<\/p>\n
confession and that, if he does so, any confession he<\/p>\n
may  make may be used as evidence against him and she   <\/p>\n
believed  that this confession was voluntarily  made,<\/p>\n
taken in her presence and hearing, and was read  over<\/p>\n
to  Dhaniram P.W.-6 and admitted by him to be correct<\/p>\n
and   contained  a  full  and  true  account  of  the<\/p>\n
statement made by him.  In other words, the recording<\/p>\n
of  statement of Dhaniram P.W.-6 under Section 164 is<\/p>\n
of no avail to the defence in this case.\n<\/p>\n
\n(31)  Perusing the testimony of Dhaniram P.W.-6  with<\/p>\n
utmost  circumspection, we  thus  find  that  he  has<\/p>\n
withstood  the test of skillful cross-examination  by<\/p>\n
the defence counsel.  When he was asked as to whether  <\/p>\n
he  went to call appellant Ranjeet when Rajkumari was<\/p>\n
struggling  for  life, he replied  that  Ranjeet  was<\/p>\n
involved in the crime and, therefore, why would he go<\/p>\n
to call him.  The testimony of Dhaniram P.W.-6 proves<\/p>\n
that  all  the four appellants\/accused after  hurling<\/p>\n
filthy abuses told him that they would commit rape on<\/p>\n
Rajkumari and had drawn him out in the courtyard.  It<\/p>\n
could be that the son of Rajkumari, who was lying  by<\/p>\n
her side, was also given by the appellants\/accused to<\/p>\n
Dhaniram  P.W.-6, who admitted that he  was  carrying<\/p>\n
the  son  of Rajkumari while the daughter was crying.<\/p>\n
The  counsel for the defence made the best  endeavour<\/p>\n
to  elicit favourable answers from Dhaniram P.W.-6 by<\/p>\n
skillful  cross-examination  but  the  learned  trial<\/p>\n
Judge rightly ensured that the witness has understood<\/p>\n
the  questions  before answering  them  which  is  in<\/p>\n
conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court  of<\/p>\n
India  in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another  vs.<\/p>\n
State  of  Gujarat and others, (2004) 4  SCC  158  in<\/p>\n
which the Court held as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “The  courts  have to take a  participatory
\n     role  in a trial. They are not expected  to
\n     be  tape  recorders to record  whatever  is
\n     being stated by the witnesses.  Section 311
\n     of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence
\n     Act   confer  vast  and  wide   powers   on
\n     presiding  officers of court to elicit  all
\n     necessary  materials by playing  an  active
\n     role  in  the evidence-collecting  process.
\n     They have to monitor the proceedings in aid
\n     of  justice  in  a  manner that  something,
\n     which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily
\n     brought into record.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(32)   The   purpose   of  asking  questions   during<\/p>\n
examination  under  Section 313 of  the  Code  is  to<\/p>\n
afford  the  accused  personally  an  opportunity  of<\/p>\n
explaining   any   incriminating   circumstance    so<\/p>\n
appearing  in evidence against him.  The accused  may<\/p>\n
or  may  not  avail the opportunity for offering  his<\/p>\n
explanation.   The appellants\/accused did  not  avail<\/p>\n
the  opportunity  and  on being confronted  with  the<\/p>\n
testimony  of Dhaniram P.W.-6 that they  had  visited<\/p>\n
the  house of appellant Ranjeet at 9 P.M. by question<\/p>\n
No.28  stood short by simply stating that they  would<\/p>\n
not  know.  The appellants\/accused did not deny  that<\/p>\n
they  had assembled at the house of appellant Ranjeet<\/p>\n
around 9 P.M.\n<\/p>\n
\n(33)  It  is  also pertinent to note that  after  the<\/p>\n
occurrence  the  appellants\/accused  were  keeping  a<\/p>\n
constant   watch  over  Dhaniram  P.W.-6.   Appellant<\/p>\n
Ranjeet  was present near the dead body of  Rajkumari<\/p>\n
till  it  was  taken for post mortem examination  and<\/p>\n
appellant  Vishwanath had even accompanied  the  dead <\/p>\n
body  of Rajkumari for post mortem.  In other  words,<\/p>\n
due  to  the presence of his master appellant Ranjeet<\/p>\n
and  co-accused Vishwanath who had threatened to kill<\/p>\n
Dhaniram P.W.-6 if he disclosed their involvement  in<\/p>\n
the  offence  to anyone, it was natural for  Dhaniram<\/p>\n
P.W.-6, a lad of 16 years, to have kept quiet  for  2<\/p>\n
days till he was questioned by the police.<\/p>\n
(34)  The  testimony  of  Dhaniram  P.W.-6  is  fully<\/p>\n
corroborated by medical evidence of Dr.  Sheela  Saha<\/p>\n
P.W.-7  and the testimony of Sugaribai P.W.-12.   The<\/p>\n
confirmation of blood on the piece of saree used  for<\/p>\n
gagging  the  mouth of Rajkumari and the confirmation<\/p>\n
of  presence  of semen and human spermatozoa  on  the  <\/p>\n
vaginal  slides of Rajkumari and the findings  during<\/p>\n
autopsy  duly proved by Dr. Sheela Saha P.W.-7  leave<\/p>\n
no room for any doubt that the appellants\/accused had<\/p>\n
committed  house trespass with intent to commit  gang<\/p>\n
rape and murder, an offence punishable with death and<\/p>\n
had thereafter committed gang rape with Rajkumari and<\/p>\n
thereafter committed her murder by throttling her  to<\/p>\n
death.\n<\/p>\n
\n(35) So far as the mention of the name of Harjeet  in<\/p>\n
paragraph  1 of his testimony by Indrajeet P.W.-1  as<\/p>\n
being present in his house with servant Dhaniram P.W.-<\/p>\n
6  at  the  time of occurrence, it is nothing  but  a<\/p>\n
typographical  error.  No question  was  put  to  any<\/p>\n
witness  that  besides appellant  Ranjeet,  Indrajeet<\/p>\n
P.W.-1 also had a brother named Harjeet.<\/p>\n
(36) Having thus undertaken a very close and critical<\/p>\n
scrutiny of the evidence of Dhaniram P.W.-6,  we  are<\/p>\n
of  the  considered opinion that his evidence  is  of<\/p>\n
such   sterling  quality  that  conviction   of   the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused for the commission  of  gang  rape<\/p>\n
and  murder after house trespass with that  intention<\/p>\n
can  safely  be  rested  on it.   We  find  that  the<\/p>\n
evidence of Dhaniram P.W.-6 is free from any  blemish<\/p>\n
or  suspicion  and  impresses us as wholly  truthful,<\/p>\n
natural  and so convincing that we have no hesitation<\/p>\n
in upholding the conviction of the appellants\/accused<\/p>\n
recorded  by  the learned Additional Sessions  Judge,<\/p>\n
Pendra  Road  for  the offences under  Sections  449,<\/p>\n
376(2)(g) and 302 read with Section 34 of the  Indian<\/p>\n
Penal  Code  solely on the basis of the testimony  of<\/p>\n
Dhaniram P.W.-6 the lone eye witness.\n<\/p>\n
\n(37)  The evidence led by the appellants\/accused does<\/p>\n
not  prove  the defence of alibi.  The  testimony  of<\/p>\n
Samelal  D.W.-1 and Kamla D.W.-2 wife of  Ranjeet  is<\/p>\n
nothing but an afterthought.  It is unbelievable that<\/p>\n
Samelal  D.W.-1 an agriculturist was keeping a  watch<\/p>\n
as  to  when  they would go to sleep.  His  testimony<\/p>\n
that he would frequently go to the house of Ramnaresh<\/p>\n
to  confirm  that he was sleeping, is nothing  but  a<\/p>\n
bundle  of falsehood.  The testimony of Kamla  D.W.-2<\/p>\n
wife of Ranjeet that she had slept with Ranjeet at  9<\/p>\n
P.M.  on  the  date of occurrence is contradicted  by<\/p>\n
Samelal D.W.-1 who stated in paragraph 3 that Ranjeet<\/p>\n
had  gone to sleep at his house at 10 P.M.  Thus, the<\/p>\n
evidence  led  by  the  defence  is  nothing  but  an<\/p>\n
afterthought  and does not provide any alibi  to  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused.\n<\/p>\n
\n(38)  Having thus carefully scrutinised the  evidence<\/p>\n
led  by  the  prosecution  and  the  defence  in  its<\/p>\n
entirety and for the foregoing reasons, we are of the<\/p>\n
considered   opinion  that  the  learned   Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions  Judge, Pendra Road was wholly justified  in<\/p>\n
convicting the appellants\/accused under Sections 449,<\/p>\n
376(2)(g) and 302 read with Section 34 of the  Indian<\/p>\n
Penal  Code.   The sentence awarded  by  the  learned<\/p>\n
Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Pendra  Road  for   the<\/p>\n
offences  under  Sections 449 and  376(2)(g)  of  the<\/p>\n
Indian  Penal  Code  are wholly commensurate  to  the<\/p>\n
offences committed by the appellants\/accused  and  do<\/p>\n
not   call  for  any  interference.  Criminal  Appeal<\/p>\n
No.1117\/2007   preferred  by  the  appellants\/accused<\/p>\n
Ramnaresh,  Vishwanath Singh, Amar Singh and  Ranjeet   <\/p>\n
Kewat  is,  thus, without merit and is liable  to  be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n(39)  The  only  question which now remains  for  our<\/p>\n
consideration  is whether the case  in  hand  is  the<\/p>\n
rarest  of  rare cases and whether the learned  trial<\/p>\n
Judge  was justified in awarding the extreme  penalty<\/p>\n
to  the  appellants\/accused  for  the  offence  under<\/p>\n
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian  Penal<\/p>\n
Code.\n<\/p>\n
\n(40)  It  is well settled that death penalty  can  be<\/p>\n
awarded  only in the rarest of rare cases.   For  the<\/p>\n
offence  of murder life imprisonment is the rule  and<\/p>\n
death sentence is an exception.  Death sentence  must <\/p>\n
be  imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be<\/p>\n
an  altogether inadequate punishment having regard to<\/p>\n
the relevant circumstances of the crime.<\/p>\n
(41)  In Machhi Singh and others vs. State of Punjab,<\/a><\/p>\n
(1983)  3  SCC  470,  the Supreme Court  observed  as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “The  following questions may be asked  and
\n     answered as a test to determine the `rarest
\n     of  rare’ case in which death sentence  can
\n     be inflicted:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (a)  Is there something uncommon about
\n               the  crime which renders sentence
\n               of    imprisonment    for    life
\n               inadequate and calls for a  death
\n               sentence?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (b)  Are   the  circumstances  of  the
\n               crime  such  that  there  is   no
\n               alternative  but to impose  death
\n               sentence   even  after  according
\n               maximum    weightage    to    the
\n               mitigating  circumstances   which
\n               speak in favour of the offender?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(42)  In  Shivu and another vs. R.G., High  Court  of<\/p>\n
Karnataka  and  another,  2007  Cri.L.J.  1806,   the<\/p>\n
Supreme  Court narrated the guidelines emerging  from<\/p>\n
the  case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980)<\/p>\n
2  SCC  684 which have to be applied to the facts  of<\/p>\n
each individual case where the question of imposition<\/p>\n
of death sentence arises.  They are as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “(i) The  extreme penalty of death need not
\n          be  inflicted except in gravest  cases
\n          of extreme culpability.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) Before opting for the death penalty the
\n          circumstances of the `offender’ also require to be
\n          taken into consideration along with the circumstances
\n          of the `crime’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)     Life imprisonment is the rule and death
\n          sentence is an exception.  Death sentence must be
\n          imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an
\n          altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the
\n          relevant circumstances of the crime, and provided,
\n          and only provided, the option to impose sentence of
\n          imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously
\n          exercised having regard to the nature and
\n          circumstances of the crime and all the relevant
\n          circumstances.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating
\n          circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the
\n          mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full
\n          weightage and a just balance has to be struck between
\n          the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances
\n          before the option is exercised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In  rarest  of  rare cases when  collective
\n     conscience  of the community is so  shocked
\n     that  it  will  expect the holders  of  the
\n     judicial  power  centre  to  inflict  death
\n     penalty   irrespective  of  their  personal
\n     opinion   as   regards   desirability    or
\n     otherwise of retaining death penalty, death
\n     sentence can be awarded.  The community may
\n     entertain  such sentiment in the  following
\n     circumstances:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (1)  When the murder is committed in an extremely
\n               brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly
\n               manner so as to arouse intense and extreme
\n               indignation of the community.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (2)  When the murder is committed for a motive which
\n               evinces total depravity and meanness; e.g. murder by
\n               hired assassin for money or reward or a cold-blooded
\n               murder for gains of a person vis–vis whom the
\n               murderer is in a dominating position or in a position
\n               of trust, or murder is committed in the course for
\n               betrayal of the motherland.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (3)  When murder of a member of a Scheduled Caste or
\n               minority community etc., is committed not for
\n               personal reasons but in circumstances which arouse
\n               social wrath, or in cases of `bride burning’ or
\n               `dowry deaths’ or when murder is committed in order
\n               to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry once
\n               again or to marry another woman on account of
\n               infatuation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (4)  When the crime is enormous in proportion.  For
\n               instance when multiple murders, say of all or almost
\n               all the members of a family or a large number of
\n               persons of a particular caste, community, or
\n               locality, are committed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (5)  When the victim of murder is an innocent child,
\n               or a helpless woman or old or infirm person or a
\n               person vis–vis whom the murderer is in a dominating
\n               position or a public figure generally loved and
\n               respected by the community.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          If  upon taking an overall global view
\n          of  all the circumstances in the light
\n          of   the  aforesaid  propositions  and
\n          taking into account the answers to the
\n          questions posed by way of the test for
\n          the   rarest   of  rare   cases,   the
\n          circumstances  of the  case  are  such
\n          that death sentence is warranted,  the
\n          court would proceed to do so.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
(43)  In  Shivu and another vs. R.G., High  Court  of<\/p>\n
Karnataka  and another (supra), a young  girl  of  18<\/p>\n
years  was  murdered by the appellants and  to  avoid<\/p>\n
detection  the appellants committed the  heinous  and<\/p>\n
brutal  act  of  her  murder.  Considering  the  view<\/p>\n
expressed  by  the Supreme Court of India  in  Bachan<\/p>\n
Singh  vs.  State of Punjab (supra) and Machhi  Singh<\/p>\n
and  others vs. State of Punjab<\/a> (supra), it was  held<\/p>\n
that  the  case fell in rarest of rare  category  and<\/p>\n
death  sentence  awarded  by  the  trial  Court   and<\/p>\n
confirmed by the High Court was affirmed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(44) In Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana vs. State of<\/p>\n
W.B.,  (1994) 2 SCC 220, it was held that the  sordid<\/p>\n
episode of the security guard, whose sacred duty  was<\/p>\n
to   ensure  the  protection  and  welfare   of   the<\/p>\n
inhabitants of the flats in the apartment, to gratify<\/p>\n
his lust and murder a resident of one of the flats in<\/p>\n
retaliation  for his transfer on her  complaint,  the<\/p>\n
appellant committed the most heinous type of barbaric<\/p>\n
rape and murder on a helpless and defenceless school-<\/p>\n
going  girl of 18 years.  The Supreme Court  held  as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “16.  The  sordid episode of  the  security
\n     guard, whose sacred duty was to ensure  the
\n     protection  and welfare of the  inhabitants
\n     of  the flats in the apartment, should have
\n     subjected the deceased, a resident  of  one
\n     of  the  flats,  to gratify  his  lust  and
\n     murder  her in retaliation for his transfer
\n     on her complaint, makes the crime even more
\n     heinous.   Keeping  in  view  the   medical
\n     evidence and the state in which the body of
\n     the  deceased was found, it is obvious that
\n     a  most  heinous type of barbaric rape  and
\n     murder  was  committed on  a  helpless  and
\n     defenceless school-going girl of 18  years.
\n     If  the  security  guards  behave  in  this
\n     manner  who  will  guard the  guards?   The
\n     faith of the society by such a barbaric act
\n     of  the guard, gets totally shaken and  its
\n     cry  for  justice becomes loud  and  clear.
\n     The   offence  was  not  only  inhuman  and
\n     barbaric  but  it  was a  totally  ruthless
\n     crime  of  rape  followed by  cold  blooded
\n     murder  and an affront to the human dignity
\n     of  the society.  The savage nature of  the
\n     crime  has shocked our judicial conscience.
\n     There  are  no  extenuating  or  mitigating
\n     circumstances whatsoever in the  case.   We
\n     agree  that a real and abiding concern  for
\n     the dignity of human life is required to be
\n     kept   in   mind   by  the   courts   while
\n     considering   the   confirmation   of   the
\n     sentence  of  death  but  a  cold   blooded
\n     preplanned   brutal  murder,  without   any
\n     provocation, after committing  rape  on  an
\n     innocent and defenceless young girl  of  18
\n     years,  by  the  security  guard  certainly
\n     makes  this  case a “rarest  of  the  rare”
\n     cases  which calls for no punishment  other
\n     than   the   capital  punishment   and   we
\n     accordingly confirm the sentence  of  death
\n     imposed  upon the appellant for the offence
\n     under Section 302 IPC.  …….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  (45)      In Molai and another vs. State of  Madhya<\/p>\n
Pradesh, AIR 2000 SC 177, the appellants had,  taking<\/p>\n
advantage  of  the prosecutrix a girl aged  16  years<\/p>\n
being  alone,  committed rape on her  and  thereafter<\/p>\n
strangulated  her by using her undergarments,  caused<\/p>\n
injuries on her person with a sharp edged weapon  and<\/p>\n
threw her body into a septic tank at the backside  of<\/p>\n
the  house.  The Supreme Court held that it  was  the<\/p>\n
rarest  of  rare  cases where capital punishment  was<\/p>\n
rightly awarded to each appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\n(46)  In  Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat vs. State  of<\/p>\n
Maharashtra,  AIR<\/a>  2009 SC 56, in a  case  where  the<\/p>\n
appellant  who was residing nearby and was  known  to<\/p>\n
the  deceased  and  her  family  and  had  asked  the<\/p>\n
deceased a minor girl of 9 years to accompany him  to<\/p>\n
a  hill  on  the pretext of giving her  firewood  and<\/p>\n
thereafter committed rape and murder, it was held  by<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court of India that the case at hand fell<\/p>\n
in  the  rarest  of rare category.  The circumstances<\/p>\n
established cruel acts of the accused and called  for<\/p>\n
only   one   sentence,  i.e.,  death  sentence.    In<\/p>\n
paragraphs 25 and 26, it was observed as under:<\/p>\n
     “25. …… It will be a mockery of justice
\n     to permit the accused to escape the extreme
\n     penalty   of  law  when  faced  with   such
\n     evidence and such cruel acts.  To give  the
\n     lesser punishment for the accused would  be
\n     to  render  the  justicing  system  of  the
\n     country suspect.  The common man will  lose
\n     faith   in  courts.   In  such  cases,   he
\n     understands and appreciates the language of
\n     deterrence   more   than  the   reformative
\n     jargon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     26.   Therefore, undue sympathy  to  impose
\n     inadequate sentence would do more  harm  to
\n     the  justice system to undermine the public
\n     confidence  in  the  efficacy  of  law  and
\n     society  could not long endure  under  such
\n     serious  threats.   It is,  therefore,  the
\n     duty   of  every  court  to  award   proper
\n     sentence having regard to the nature of the
\n     offence  and  the manner in  which  it  was
\n     executed  or committed etc.  This  position
\n     was illuminatingly stated by this Court  in
\n     Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil  Nadu
\n     (AIR 1991 SC 1463).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(47) Having gone through the various decisions of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court of India, the gruesome and ghastly gang <\/p>\n
rape  and  murder  of the hapless  Rajkumari  on  the<\/p>\n
Rakshabandhan  Day  by  her brother-in-law  appellant<\/p>\n
Ranjeet  and  three  other appellants\/accused,  i.e.,<\/p>\n
Ramnaresh, Vishwanath Singh and Amar Singh shows  the    <\/p>\n
depravity  and  meanness  of the  appellants\/accused,<\/p>\n
who,  to  satisfy  their lust, did  not  hesitate  to<\/p>\n
commit  gang  rape on a married woman and  thereafter<\/p>\n
murdered  her inside her house when her  husband  had <\/p>\n
gone   out.    The   injuries  found  on   Rajkumari,<\/p>\n
externally  as well as on her private parts,  narrate<\/p>\n
the  ghastly  act committed by the appellants\/accused<\/p>\n
who  were  all able bodied young men.  The action  of<\/p>\n
the  appellants\/accused  was  premeditated  and  well<\/p>\n
planned.   Gang  rape  and murder  of  the  helpless,<\/p>\n
defenceless  and innocent Rajkumari was cold-blooded, <\/p>\n
premeditated and gruesome.  The manner in which  four <\/p>\n
able  bodied  young men, i.e., the appellants\/accused<\/p>\n
had,  for satisfying their lust, committed gang  rape<\/p>\n
on  Rajkumari and throttled her to death  shows  that<\/p>\n
the act of the appellants\/accused was so uncommon and  <\/p>\n
so aggravating that sentence of imprisonment for life<\/p>\n
would  be inadequate and imposition of death  penalty<\/p>\n
alone  would be justified for the offence of  murder.<\/p>\n
It  is a case of gravest and extreme culpability.  It<\/p>\n
shocks  the  collective conscience of  the  community<\/p>\n
which  would expect the holders of the judicial power<\/p>\n
centre  to inflict death penalty in a case of  murder<\/p>\n
of  a  hapless  woman inside her house by  four  able<\/p>\n
bodied  young  men  after satisfying  their  lust  by<\/p>\n
committing gang rape on her.  The commission of  gang <\/p>\n
rape and murder of a hapless woman by four young  and <\/p>\n
able   bodied  appellants\/accused  is  an   extremely<\/p>\n
brutal,   grotesque,   diabolical,   revolting    and<\/p>\n
dastardly  so  as  to  arouse  intense  and   extreme<\/p>\n
indignation  of  the  community.  Appellant  Ranjeet,<\/p>\n
being  the  brother-in-law of the hapless  Rajkumari,<\/p>\n
was  in  a position of trust at least on the  day  of<\/p>\n
Rakshabandhan when he, Ramnaresh, Vishwanath and Amar      <\/p>\n
Singh  found  the lonely Rajkumari an easy  prey  and<\/p>\n
after  overpowering  her gang raped  her  purely  for<\/p>\n
satisfying  their  lust  and brutally  committed  her<\/p>\n
murder by throttling her thereafter.  The act of  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused was not on account of  any  enmity<\/p>\n
or revenge.  There are no mitigating circumstances in<\/p>\n
this case which would call for imposition of a lesser<\/p>\n
penalty.   Gang  rape of a woman  is  a  most  brutal<\/p>\n
offence  against humanity and destroys the very  soul<\/p>\n
of  the woman completely.  If after gang rape she  is<\/p>\n
murdered, nothing more is required to be done  so  as<\/p>\n
to  make  the act so brutal and diabolical so  as  to<\/p>\n
justify  the  extreme penalty since the act  of  gang<\/p>\n
rape  by four men on a lonely woman inside her  house<\/p>\n
and  the  commission  of  her  murder  thereafter  by<\/p>\n
throttling  her surpasses all acts of brutality  that<\/p>\n
one can imagine.\n<\/p>\n
\n(48)  In State of H.P. vs. Shree Kant Shekari,<\/a> (2004)<\/p>\n
8  SCC  153, it was observed by the Supreme Court  of<\/p>\n
India as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     “3.   Sexual  violence apart from  being  a
\n     dehumanising  act is an unlawful  intrusion
\n     on  the right of privacy and sanctity of  a
\n     female.   It  is  a  serious  blow  to  her
\n     supreme  honour and offends her self-esteem
\n     and  dignity  – it degrades and  humiliates
\n     the  victim  and  where  the  victim  is  a
\n     helpless  innocent child  or  a  minor,  it
\n     leaves  behind  a traumatic experience.   A
\n     rapist  not  only causes physical  injuries
\n     but  more  indelibly leaves a scar  on  the
\n     most  cherished possession of a woman  i.e.
\n     her dignity, honour, reputation and not the
\n     least  her  chastity.  Rape is not  only  a
\n     crime against the person of a woman, it  is
\n     a  crime  against the entire  society.   It
\n     destroys,  as  noted  by  this   Court   in
\n     Bodhisattwa  Gautam v. Subhra  Chakraborty,<\/a>
\n     (1996) 1 SCC 490 the entire psychology of a
\n     woman  and  pushes her into deep  emotional
\n     crisis.  It is a crime against basic  human
\n     rights,  and  is  also  violative  of   the
\n     victim’s  most cherished of the fundamental
\n     rights, namely, the right to life contained
\n     in  Article  21  of the Constitution.   The
\n     courts  are,  therefore, expected  to  deal
\n     with  cases  of sexual crime against  women
\n     with  utmost sensitivity.  Such cases  need
\n     to  be dealt with sternly and severely.   A
\n     socially  sensitised Judge, in our opinion,
\n     is  a  better statutory armour in cases  of
\n     crime  against women than long  clauses  of
\n     penal    provisions,   containing   complex
\n     exceptions and provisos.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(49)  Taking  an  overall  global  view  of  all  the<\/p>\n
circumstances, we are of the considered opinion  that<\/p>\n
the  circumstances  of the case  are  such  that  the<\/p>\n
present case falls into the category of the rarest of<\/p>\n
rare   cases  and  death  penalty  awarded   to   the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused  under  Section  302   read   with<\/p>\n
Section  34  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  is  wholly<\/p>\n
justified.  We do hope and trust that Parliament does<\/p>\n
consider  providing for the extreme penalty  for  the<\/p>\n
offence  of gang rape, which completely destroys  the<\/p>\n
soul of a woman and her right to live with dignity.<\/p>\n
(50)  In  the  result,  we  dismiss  Criminal  Appeal<\/p>\n
No.1117\/2007  by  the  appellants\/accused  Ramnaresh, <\/p>\n
Vishwanath  Singh, Amar Singh and Ranjeet  Kewat  and  <\/p>\n
allow  Criminal  Reference  No.3\/2007  under  Section<\/p>\n
366(1)  of  the  Code by Shri Ram Kumar  Tiwari,  the<\/p>\n
Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Pendra  Road,  District<\/p>\n
Bilaspur   in  Sessions  Trial  No.403\/2006.    Under<\/p>\n
Section  368(a) of the Code, we confirm the  sentence<\/p>\n
of  death  awarded  to  the appellants\/accused  under<\/p>\n
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian  Penal<\/p>\n
Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra <\/p>\n
Road.  We also confirm the sentences awarded  to  the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused by the learned Additional Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge,  Pendra Road under Sections 449 and  376(2)(g) <\/p>\n
of  the Indian Penal Code.  We further order that the<\/p>\n
death  sentence  awarded  by the  learned  Additional<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Pendra Road to the appellants\/accused  <\/p>\n
under  Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal  Code and confirmed by us shall not be executed<\/p>\n
until the period allowed for preferring an appeal has<\/p>\n
expired,  or, if an appeal is presented  within  such<\/p>\n
period, until such appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n
(51)   The  Additional  Registrar  (Judicial)  shall,<\/p>\n
without delay, send a copy of this judgment and order<\/p>\n
under  the  seal of the High Court and attested  with<\/p>\n
his  official  signature to the  Additional  Sessions<\/p>\n
Judge,  Pendra Road, District Bilaspur under  Section<\/p>\n
371 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     JUDGE                               JUDGE\n        24-7-2009                                24-7-2009\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Bench Coram Hon’ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh and Hon’ble Shri Rajeshwar Lal Jhanwar, JJ. Criminal Appeal No 1117 of 2007 and Criminal Reference No 3 of 2007 1. Ramnaresh 2. Vishwanath Singh 3. Amar Singh 4. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-20T08:17:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"61 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-20T08:17:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":12023,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-20T08:17:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-20T08:17:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"61 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-20T08:17:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009"},"wordCount":12023,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009","name":"Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-20T08:17:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramnaresh-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramnaresh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128920","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128920\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}