'"^ A 8 f^ A ^~~^ /r^K .£>-=' •! i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR @ CORAM: Hon'bje Shri SyniL Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2004 Lekhram Dhruv Vs. State of Chhattisgarh JUDGNIENT For consideration _-tl_-— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRJ JUSTICE T.P. SHARMA a)-^y^~ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judgg ' Post for Judgment :3&/11/2010 Sd/- A.--77 ^-K HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAIVI: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri T.P. SHARMA. JJ, ^ 'lS? APPELLANT RESPONDENT Criminal Appeal No.^16 of 2004 Lekhram Dhruv S/o Chandrabhan Singh, aged about 25 years, Occupation- Agriculture, Resident of Village- Goudhi, P.S. Bhatapara Rural, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh through, P.S. Bhatapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedyre) Appearance: Mr. Adil Minhaz, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (30.11.2010) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil KumarSinha. J. (1) This appeal is directed against thejudgment dated 28.11.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 148/2003 by the First Additippal Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar(C.G.). ; (2) By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/ss 302 & 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default R.l. for one month and R.l. for 6 i.v. Crinrinal Appeal No. 16 of 2004 ^ ^^•U.-iU.'^.i t^lll^^^t^^" months respectively, with a further direction to run the sentences concurFently. (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- On 17.3.2003 at about 10-10.30 p.m., the villagers of village Goudhi had gathered near Dihi tank (talaab) for Holikadahan. The allegations are that the appellant came there with a club in his hand and assaulted deceased- Manglu by the said club. When Panchuram (PW-1) tried to intervene, he was also assaulted by the appellant. The incident was witnessed by many villagers, including Panchuram (PW-1), Chandrika Prasad (PW-2), Devnarayan (PW-3) and Chamarram (PW-4). Panchuram (PW-1) went to Sarpanch and village Kotwar- Ganeshram and told about the incident. When they reached to the place of occurrence, they saw that the deceased was lying in poot of blood and was dead. He had received multiple injuries. Ganeshram gave information to the concerned police station by a telephone. This was reduced into writing by Dilip Kumar Sahu (PW-12) as Rojnamchasanah (Ex.-P/26). Dilip Kumar Sahu (PW-12) immediately telephoned to the Investigating Officer- Ajit Patley (PW-11), who was on patrolting duty. The tnvestigating Officer reached to the viltage in the night at about 2.00 a.m. A dehatinalishi (Ex.-P/1) was recorded at the instance of Panchuram (PW-1). Based on the above materials, later on, the First Information Report (Ex.- P/12) was registered. After giving notice (Ex.-P/2) to Panchas, inquest (Ex.-P/3) on the body of the deceased was prepared. One crow-bar and one small danda, said to be that of the deceased, were seized from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo Ex.-P/4. Blood stain soil and plain soil were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/S. A club was also seized from the possession of the appellant vide seizure ; •+ r"—' /«<y) f-^1 Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2004 memo Ex.-P/6. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination to Government Hospital, Bhatapara 'vide requisition Ex.-P/13(A). The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Himanshu Joshi (PW-8). He noticed following external injuries on the body of the deceased:- (i) Left side of face was badly smashed; (ii) There was a laceration on the nasal bridge with fracture of nasal bone; (iii) Lacerated wound on the left angle of mouth and at the center of lower lip; (iv) Left side of face and both the nostrils were gathered with dried blood and right side of the face was swollen with dried blood on the surface; (v) Lacerated wound 7 cm x Vz cm on the middle of scatp & (vi) Lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on left temporal area. On internal examination, he found that there was fracture of 23 cm on the middle of the skull. There was also a fracture on left parietal bone. The brain membrane has ruptured. The brain tissues beneath the membrane were completely ruptured. The skull bones had broken into many pieces and had pierced into brain material. There was haemorrhage on the back portion of the skull. There was fracture of teft portion thyroid. Lateral edge of tongue. was lacerated with dislocation of mandible molars. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death was shock on account of extensive head injury and injury to brain etc. The death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex.-P/13. Injured Panchuram (PW-1) was also sent for his medical examination through requisition Ex.-P/14(A). He was also examined by Dr. Himanshu Joshi (PW-8). There was a ) ^ j;.,i>,^SiUi^ » -"*\ i'^-s' •^:..^ Crimiiial Appeal No. 16 of 2004 contusion of 7.5 cm on elbow of his left hand and there was an abrasion of 2 cm x % cm at the position of 5 rib. Both injuries were simple, caused by hard and blunt object. His injury report is EX.-P/14. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide memo Ex.-P/21, from where, a report Ex.-P/23 was received. According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on almost all the articles, except the plain soil and full-pant of the appellant. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge- sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Rist Class, Baloda Bazar, who in turn committed the matter to the concerned Sessions Court, from where, it was received on transfer by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. ; ^ (4) Out of the above 4 eye-witnesses i.e. Panchuram (PW-1), Chandrika Prasad (PW-2), Devnarayan (PW-3) and Chamarram (PW-4), Devnarayan (PW-3) and Chamarram (PW-4) turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the testimonies of Panchuram (PW-1) and Chandrika Prasad (PW-2), recorded the conviction of the appellant. (5) Mr. Adil Minhaz, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the above two witnesses were not reliable, -I- -^ Criminal Aooeal No. 16 of 2004 therefore, the conviction based on their testimonies cannot be sustained. (6) On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Couri:. (7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. (8) Panchuram (PW-1) is an injured eye-witness. He deposed that on the fateful night many villagers had gathered at the place of occurrence, as Holikadahan was to be performed. He has particularly mentioned the names of Rangnath, Premnarayan, Chandrika Prasad (PW-2) and Devnarayan (PW-3). According to this witness, deceased- Manglu was also present there. He deposed that, all of a sudden, the appellant came there with a club in his hands and started assaulting the deceased. When they were trying to stop him, he did not stop the assault. When he further tried to intervene, the appellant assaulted him by lathi on his left han'd.' The appellant had also used crow-bar against him. When the appellant was assaulting the deceased, the villagers gathered there have run away from that place. (9) Chandrika Prasad (PW-2) also deposed in similar fashion. He deposed that the appellant, all of a sudden came there and started CriminalADpealNo. 16 of 2004 assaulting the deceased by lathi. When they tried to stop him, he did not stop and when Panchuram tried to intervene, the appellant assaulted Panchuram, due to which he sustained injury on his left hand and on the left side on the chest. He very specifically deposed that the deceased died on account assault made by the appellant. "i'ss-.MSSS^;^ (10) Though these witnesses have been put to length cross- examination by the defence but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstances on which either their testimonies may be discarded or it may be said that they were falsely implicating the appellant in this crime. The incident took place at about 10-10.30 p.m. when the villagers had gathered for Holikadahan. The deceased and the appellant both were residents of same village. They were previously known to the eye-witnesses. The eye- witnesses are claiming that they had tried to intervene and they had also tried to stop the appellant. Therefore, there is no question of mistaken identity. Moreover, Panchuram (PW-1) has also received injuries, therefore, his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. (11) We find that the evidence of these 2 eye-witnesses are also corroborated by the medical evidence,as the Autopsy Surgeon found the above lacerated injuries on the body of the deceased and he also found simple injury on the person of Panchuram (PW-1). Apart from the above, the versions of these witnesses are further corroborated by the contents of the merg intimation, dehatinalishi / ^)/ Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2004 and the F.1. R. in which almost same story has been mentioned by Panchuram j(PW-1). All these documents contain the name of the appellant as the assailant ofthe deceased. VWf'sW^S^ SitafcifciiEg (12) The contents of the Roznamchasanah dated 17.3.2003 (Ex.- P/26) have also been proved on record. In. Roznamchasanah No. 575, there is mentioned about the telephonic information through Kotwar- Ganeshram that appellant- Lekhram has assaulted the deceased in village Goudhi who is lying in injured condition, and thereafter vide Roznamchasanah No. 576, this information was forwarded to the S.H.O. by the mobile-phone who was on patrolling duty. It has also been mentioned that the S.H.O. informed that he would be reaching to village Goudhi out & out. Dilip Kumar Sahu (PW-12) has been examined as the person who made entry in Roznamchasanah as above. Nothing has been brought on record to discard the testimony of PW-12 or to disbelieve the entry of Roznamchasanah Nos. 575 and 576 dated 17.3.2003. The contents of above Roznamchasanah appears to be first hand information to the police. This information contains the details, particularly the name of the appellant as assailant and the name of the deceased. We find that the evidence of the above eye-witnesses is fully corroborated by this document. (13) In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the above 2 eye-witnesses, namely Panchuram (PW-1) and Chandrika Prasad (PW-2), were fully reliable witnesses and the vatti ^\'1/ Criminal AppealNo. 16 of 2004 learned Sessions Judge has rightly placed his reliance on the testimonies of these 2 witnesses. We find that it was proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant committed murder of the deceased and he also assaulted Panchuram (PW-1). The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that these 2 witnesses were not reliable, therefore, cannot be accepted. l:,..,<.t!-«!S§SS;»' (14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T-P^Sharma Judge