HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR CRIMINAL DEATH REFERENCE N0. 112001 (Made by the Additional Seésions Judge, Jashpur Nagar, Raigarh under section 366 of the Code of Cn'minal Procedum) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 158 OF 2001 APPELLANT : Ram Singh S/o Dharam Sai Nagvanshi, Aged about 37 yeaIS, R/o Village-Gaja, RS. Pathalgaon, Tahsil— Pathalgaon, District—Jéshpumagar (C. G.) . -Versus- §tate of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Pathalgaon, Tahsil—Pathalgaon, Disu‘ictf Jashpumagar (C.G.). RESPONDENT; JUDGMENT for Coggi’d’e/Igtiion, * "" ’ Sdl— L.C.BHAD00 Judge géhJuly; 2003. 4 nowam THE CHIEF JUSTICE. l (afar/(if . _V i Chief Justice POST FOR JUDGMENT ONMJuly, 2003. ‘ 7i 5di- ‘~‘ L.c.BHADoo Judge 2 3‘ Leg V'Jiliy,’ 2603’ w: "~ PxL— W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR CRIMINAL DEATH REFERENCE NO. 1/2001 0 (Made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar, Raigarh undsr section 366 of the Code of Cn‘minal Procedure) CRIMINAL APPEAL no. 158 OF 2001 APPELLANT : Ram Singh S/o Dharam Sai Nagvanshi, Aged about 37 years, R/ o Village—Gaja, 1 P.S. Pathalgaon, Tahsil— Pathalgaon, District-Jashpumagar (C. G.). -Versus- RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, through ’ ‘ RS. Pathalgaon, Tahsil-Pathalgaon, District- Jashpurnagar (C. G.). Appellant by Shri Shailendra Dubey, Advocate. State by Shri P. S. Koshy, Govt. Advocate. DB: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.H.N.KURANGA, C.J. 85 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. C. BHADOO, J. JUDGMENT (Zé'vguly, 2003) By Justice L C. Bhadoo. .1. The accused/appellant Ram Singh was trieda by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 1999 for the commission of the oEences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the muniers of Shani Ram and y. Mayaram and’ for attempting to commit the murder of f) Sukhn‘ Bai. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dated 9*1‘ January 2001 after holding the accused guilty of the oEences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. sentenced him to death and pay a hue of Rs. 10,000/-, in / /" ‘ default of payment of tine to further undergo simple imprisonment for ve yams for the. o§6nce under section 302 LP.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Id years and to pay a one of Rs. 5,000] -, in default of payment of ‘jane to further undergo simple imprisonment for 21/2 yeam for‘ the o£ence under Section 307 LRC. Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2001 has been nled by the accused-appellant against ’the said conviction and sentences passed against him by the Additional Sessions Judge. On the other handhthe leained Additional Sessions Judge has made Criminal Reference No. '1 of 2001 to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence imposed by him on the accused. This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid Appeal med by the accused and the Reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The relevant prosecution story in brief is that on 8th September, 1999 in between 11.30 am. to 13.30 p.m. in village-Gala the accused Ram Singh committed the murder 9 . of Shani Ram @ Abir Sai in his house and also eommitted the murder of Maya Ram in the house of Maya Ram assaulting them with a tangia. He also assaulted Sukhn’ Bai, mother of Sanjhu Ram with tangia with intention to commit her murder. The deceased Mayaram was maternal uncle of Sanjhu Ram (P.W.2) and deceased Abir Sai was uncle of Sanjhu Ram and injured Sukhri Bai (P.W.3) is mother of Sanjhu Ram. One revenue case was pending between Sanjhu Ram and accused Ram Singh in the Court / “vvx of the Tchsildar, Pathalgaon. P.W.2 Sanjhu Ram and accused Ram Singh am tha sons 0f Dharam Sai who married two ladies. Sukhri Rai is the. mother of SaujhueRam (P.W.2) and the other wife of Dharam Sai is the mother of accused Ram Singh. ; 0n 8.9.1999 Sanjhu Ram (P.W.2) reported the matter to the police station Pathalgaon that he and accused Ram Singh are stepbrothers. Accused Ram Singh is son of the nrst wife u . of Dharam Sai and he is the son of the second wife namely Slikhri Bai. ‘Afler 111C death of their falher,’ Ram Singh got mutated the Whole agricultural land in his name and only 50 decimal land was given to Sanjhu Ram. Themfore, Sanjhu Ram med a case in the Court of Tehsildar Pathalgaon for partition of the land and on account of that some dispute Was going on between the accused Ram Singh and complainant Sanjhu Ram. On 8'11 September 1999 at about 1 1 a.m, accused Ram Singh invited Shani Ram @ Abir Sai, uncle of Sanjhu Ram, to ‘his residence for a lunch and during the lunch the accused and Shani Ram started $ discussing about the dispute between Sanjhu Ram and Ram Singh. During that discussion accused Ram Singh said that you are taking the side of Sanjhu Ram and assaulted Shani Ram 3—4 umes by tangia and murdered him. Thereafter accused Ram Singh started from his house in search of -\ Sanjhu Ram but at that iime he was not present at his house. However, the mother of Sanjhu Ram namely Sukhri Bai was present in the house. The accused assaulted Sukhri Bai by tangia on her head, neck, shoulder and near the/earJ/a/{/ Q! / . 0n receiving these injuries she fell down in the dalan. The accused left Sukhri Bai thinking that she was dead. When Q Put-no Ram (P.W.5) tried to‘ intervene and asked the accused not to assault Sukhri Bai the accused tied to assault him also. After assaulh'ng Sukhri Bai the accused went t0 the agricultural held in search of Sanjhu Ram. The accused was carrying the tangia in his hand. Sanjhu Ram was fencing his‘ held. The accused mached there and started abusing Sanjhu Ram saying that he has already munlered one peison and he will also kill Sanjhu Ram. On seeing this conduct of the accused, Sanjhu Ram started running and entered the house of Mayaram. At that time Maya Ram'was taking . his meals, Sanjhu Ram narrated the story to Mayaram. He asked Sanjhu Ram to hide himselfin the room (Pateva). Sanjhu Ram climbed on to the Pateva and hid himself in the Pateva (a space in the mom meant for keeping the house hold goods) and the son of Mayamm and daughter in law (P.W.4) Tija Bai closed the door of the house. After 15 to 2O minutes the accused Ram Singh reached the house of Maya Ram and he started hanging the door. He ultimately broke open the door and enquired about Sanjhu Ram nom Maya Ram. When Maya Ram replied that Sanjhu Ram had not come here, the accused blamed Maya Ram that he' is~takingtthe side of Sanjhu Ram and dragged him Lo the courtyard and assaulted 7-8 times with tangia on his head and legs. Maya Ram succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on the spot. Thereafter the accused ran away to his in—laws village-Bhukkcdpur. ‘’k. Code. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove the odences against the accuscd[appcllant examined in all 11 Witnesses. The /t. / x, ‘ S 6. Sanjhu Ram camc down from Patcva. When he was in the patava he. heald all thi: convcxsation of Maya Ram and the accused Ram Singh. Themaftgr Sanjhu Ram Went to his house Where he saw his injured mother. He took village Kotwar and reached the house of the accused where they saw the dead body of Shani Ram. ’l‘heneafter they went to the police station any lodged the hrst information mpoxt “EELPI3, gave merg intimation about Shani Ram (EXP/4) and also gave merg intimation about Maya Ram (Ex.P/ 17). The yoh'ce legistered the case and during investigation the accused Ram Singh gave information under secn'on 27 of the Evidence Act (EX.P/ 6) and pursuant to that information the weapon of offence i.e. tangia was recovered at the instance of the accused h‘om the bush in the garden of one Karen Master. After completion of the investigation the police nled challan against the accusedlappellant in the Court of C.J.M. Jashpur Nagar who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge Raigarh from where the case was received on transfer in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Jashpm Nagar. 7. Sukhri Bai was admitted to the hospital on 8th September and remained in the hospital up to 29th September. 8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges ., against the accused] a§13e11ant for commission of the oh‘ence punishable under section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal statement o he accused was xeconded under section 3 13 of f t fthe Cr.P.C. in which he has denied the evidence of the ; pmsecutirm Witnesses and stated that he had not mufdered E anyone. He further stated that Sanjhu Ram was doing t leadership in the matter of his agriculture held, he is a blind . person when he was grazing the cattle in the &ld, the police caught him. He further stated that he had not said anything ‘to ‘Sanjhu Ram or Baijnanth Singh. However, he admitted that Sanjhu Ram had tiled a case in the Court of Tehsildar against him. He is not even able to walk therefore how he could chase Sanjhu Ram to commit his murder. He has not murdered Maya Ram and he does not know how he died. He has further stated that his lungi and tangia were seized in the police station. The tangia was not seized hom him. After hearing the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused/appellant and after believing the evidence of the pmsecuh'on, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted'and sentenced the accused] appellant for the commission of oEences under section 302 and 307 I.P.C. as aforesaid. vi 10. We have heard Shri Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel for the accused/appellant and Shri P.S.Koshy, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. 11. As far as the nature of death of Shani Ram and Maya Ram as homicidal is concerned the learned counsel for the -‘ccused/appellant has not disputed this fact. Dr. Smt. Anita Minj (P.W.11) has stated that on 9.9.1999 she conducted thc posmiortcm on the body of Abir Sai. On a3 V -\ //2“‘” e/ V‘ 9 examination following injuries wem found on the body of Shani Ram:— U (i) lnciscd wound on right side of the occipital legion in the size of 6x3x4 c.m. (ii) Inciscd wound on thc left side of the occipital legion in the sizc of 4x3x3 c.m. (11.1) Incised wound on the left side of the occipital Iegion. (iv) Contusion on the supraorbital region in the size of ‘ 4X3X0.4 c.m. , Ifgu‘Es of the head wars dmnched with blood and clotted v blood was present in the nostrils of the deceased. On opening the head it was found that the bone of the occipital i region and frontal mgion were nactured and the bmin was crushed. Haematoma was present in the size of 5x4x3 c,m. The injuries were ante mortem in natute and Abir Sai died on account of shock and excessive bleeding. In the opinion of the doctor the nature of death was homicidal. 12. Dr. Smt. Anita Minj (P.W.11) has further stated that on 9.9. 1999 she also conducted the postnortem on the body of Maya Ram. The following injuries were found on the body of Maya Ram:~ (i) Incised wound on right parietal region on the head in the size of4 x 1.5 c.m. bone deep. (ii) Incised Wound on vertex region in the size of 2x1 c.m. bone deep. (iii) Inciscd wound on the left occipital region in the size of 4x3 c.m. bone deep and the bone was h‘actmed. (iv) lncised wound on the left side of the jaw in the size of "4.5x1 x1 /2 c.m. (v) Incised wound on the left side of the mouth in the size of 1.5x1/2 x1/2 c.m. (vi) Incised wound on right side of the occipital region in the size of 4x3x3 c.m. V 13. All the injun'ss were caused by haxd and sharp edged WtapOn. The. margns were clear-cut and the injuries were . ante mortem. On opening of the head it was found that the H skull was mothed, both 1ight and left occipital ‘region bones were mctured and Haematoma of the size of 4x3x3 was present. ’l‘he cause of death was due to excessive bleeding and on account of the injun'es on the head which were homicidal in nat’ure. Her mport is Ex.P/ 25. Dr. Smt. Anita Minj (P.W.11) has further stated that on 8,9.1999 at about 7.45 she examined Sukhri Bai. Following injun'es we‘re found on the body of Sukhri Bai :- (i) Inciscd wound 3x1x1/2 c.1n. on left occipital xegion, the margins were clear—cut, the injury was bone deep. Incised wound in the size of 3x1x1/2 c.m. on the (ii) ‘ occipital region. (iii) Incised wound in the size of 2.5x1/ 2x1] 2 c.m. on the backside of the neck at the right side. (iv) lncised wound 4x1x1/2 c.m. on the left tempo facial region. lncised Wound 1x1] 2 c.m. on the shoulder and blood (V) was oozing out of the injuries. The patient was conscious; the injuries were caused by sham and the hard object. Her report is Ex.P[26. The injuries of Sukhri Bai were dangerous and these injuries could have been fatal to the life of Sukhri Bai. The report of the doctor is EXP] 27. Sukri Bai remained in the hospital for 21 days and thexreport is EXP] 28. On enquiry by the Police Station Pathalgaon Dr. Smt. Anita Minj (P.W. 11) gave‘the report EXP] 29 that all the injuries of Shani Ram, Maya Ram and "an Sukhri Bai iiiii///’::' could be caused by a Ai/ tangia. 14. In View of the above evidence of the doctor and the eyewitnesses namely Tija Bai (P.W.4), Purnoram (P.W.5) and Sukhri Bai (P.W.3) and a1so the evidence of Sanjhu Ralun (P.W.2) it is clear that the two deceased persons died hqmicidal deaths and Sukhn' Bai sustained injuries in the incident in question. Therefore it stands proved that the nature of the (death of Shani Ram and Maya Ram was homicidal and the accused assaulted Sukhn‘ Bai (P.W.3) by up tangia with intendon to cause hear death. Dr. Smt. Anita Minj has stated that the injuries on the body of Sukhri Bai were dangerbus to life. Therefore the attack on the Sukhri Bai falls Within the ambit of odence under section 307 of the -I.P.C. Le. attempt to murder. Coming to the question of the involvement of the accused] appellant in committing murder of Shani Ram @ Abir sai, Maya Ram and assaulting Sukhri Bai is concerned we have to examine the prosecution evidence. 17. As far as the question of murder of Maya Ram is concerned Sanjhu Ram (P.W.2) has deposed that When he was working 0 in the amicultural held on the fateful day, the accused came there with a tangia in his hand. While sharpening the blade of tangia by a stone he said that he has already murdered one person and if he (Sanjhu Ram) ploughs the held he would kill him. Thereafter this witness ran away and reached the house of Maya Ram, his maternal uncle, and hid himself in the pateva of the house. The accused Ram Singh followed him, broke opened the door of the house of Maya Ram by tangia and started enquiring from Mayaram .vx 10 about Sanjhu Ram. When Mayaram rcplicd that Sanjhu Ram has not come them and then the accused Ram Singh said that he (Mayaram) was taking the side of Sanjhu Ram. Therefore, he dragged Mayaram to the courtyard, of the house and assaulted him by tangia 7-8 u'mes on various parts of the body. As per the evidence of Sanjhu Ram he heani all the conversation between Maya Ram and Ram Singh While he was hiding himselfin the Pateva. 18. Tija Bai (P.W.4) who is- giand daughter in law of the deceased Maya Ram and who was piesent at the time of the incident has clearly stated in her evidence that at about 1.30 pm. in the day she was serving food to Maya Ram and Dhana Ram, at that time Sanjhu came and said that Ram Singh is chasing him to kill him. Sanjhu Ram hid himself in the pateva and thereafter Ram Singh came, and banged the door of the house by a tangia, broke opened the door, entered the house, and dragged Maya Ram saying that “you people are involving me in'the litigation”. On this Maya Ram said ‘1isten to me’ but the accused Ram Singh assaulted 9 Maya Ram with tangia on his head. When the aeoused inilicted the second injury by tangia on Maya Ram, she (the witness) ran away to the house of Drupad and informed him that Ram Singh is assaulting her grant father-in—law. When she returned along with two persons she saw that Maya ix Ram was lying dead. She is the eyewitness to the incident and in the cross-examination learned counsel for the accused could not shake her evidence. Iler evidence on the point of assault on Mayaiam by the accused—appellant is 11 . and about their a corroboratcd by the evidence of Sanjhu Ram (P.W.2) who has stated that he heard the conversation between Mayaram and the accused/appellant. These Witnesses have not been cross-examined on this point. But the cross—examination wais only regarding unsoundness of the mind of the accused 1 at the i u‘me of commim'ng the crime. ’ ‘hexefore, in view 0f the evidence of ’I‘ija Bai (P.W.4) and Sanjhu Ram (P.W.2) it sténds proved that_the accused Ram Singh assaulted the u . deceased Maya Ram and committed his murder. 19. As fal; as the involvement of the accused in assaulting Sukhli Bai is concerned, Sukhri Bai (P.W.3) has deposed that at about 12.00 noon she was standing in her house, the accused came and assaulted her by tangia on her head, she became unconscious. She received injuries on her head, parietal regions and shoulders. She does not know Why the accused assaulted her. This Witness has not been cross- examined by the counsel for the accused with regard to the assault on her hy the accused. ‘She was cross—examined regarding unsoundness of the accused relations With the accused. v! 20. Pumoram (P.W.5) has stated that he was at his residence and at the relevant time when he was returning hom the house of Ghanshyam he heard the voice of Sukhri Bai W110 was crying to save her as Ram Singh was assaulting her. On that there amngiamthehaneomams mgh and he assaulted Sukhli Bai who fell down. When he asked Ram Singh why G hearing the cries, he rgached the spot and saw Was in the counyard of his house, the accgEM/ ' he has done so 12 ran away. Thereafter he oeered water to Sukhri Bai. She had received injuries on her head and she became s U unconscious. The Witness aha hae not been cross- exammed on the aspect of the assault but cmss exammed only on the aspect of unsound mmd of the accused blbboram (P W 6) has also deposed that on the fateful day at the relevant tune he had gone to the kemsene shop where w1fe of SanJhu Ram came and Informed that Ram Smgh 1s assaulting Sukn Ba1 0n hearmg tins he went to the s1te and saw mat Sukhn Ba1 was lying unconsoious in her house. Then he.went to call Sanjhu Ram at Maya Ram’s house. When he reached Maya Ram’s house, he saw the dead body of Maya Ram. Sanjhu Ram was hiding himself in Pateva. He enquired n‘om Sanjhu Ram as to who has ‘21. A . Summ- Bai (P.W.3), Hmoram (P.w.5) and Sibbo Ram (P.W.6) it is proved that accused Ram Singh assaulted Sukhri Bai. e 22. Lealned counsel for the accused has not cross-examined the above witnesses regarding the involvement of the accused in assaulting Maya Ram and Sukhn' Bai. The witnesses have been cross—examined only on the point whether at the u‘me of committing the crime the accused was of unsound mind. 23. Now coming to the question of involvement of the accused Ram Singh in committing the mumler of Shani Ram @ Abir Sai, there is no diiect evidence on this point and the whole casc rests on thc circumstantial evidence. The law onM/ ‘~i‘-\ . 13 point is that in a casc based on the circumstantial evidence the. Court can mcord conviction but it must satisfy itself E that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by . the prosecuh'on and that all the circumstances put together are not only of a conclusive nature but also complete the chain so fillly as to uneningly point only to the guilt of the accused and are not capable of V - any explanation which is not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 24. In order to pro‘ve the involvement of the accused in committing the murder of Shani Ram, the prosecution has tlied to prove this fact by adducing the evidence regarding the following cimumstances:- (i) Motive behind the crime. (ii) The dead body of Shani Ram @ Abir Sai was found in the house of the accused Ram Singh and no explanation has been oEered by the accused regarding that. (iii The statement of the accused before Sanjhu Ram (P W 2) that he has aheady murdered one person and before Baijnath Smgh (P W 1) that he has almady mmdered three persons. (iv) Recovery of the weapon of oEence i.e. Tangia on the information given by the accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act vidc EX P/6 the recovery of the axe v1de Ex P/7 and the report (Ex 13/23) of the torens1c sc1ence laboratory to the etiect that the tangla was found stained With blood. 25. As far as circumstance No. (i) is concerned, it has come in the evidence, which has not been disputed by the counsel for the accused, that Sanjhu Ram and accused Ram Singh / ) / G ‘x 14 arc stepbrothers, i.e. their father Dharmsai manied tvéo ladias; om: Wife namaly Sukhri Bai (P.W.3) is the mother of Sanjhu Ram (P.W.2) and the other wife is the moth‘e; of Ram Singh (accused). The accused Ram Singh got whole agricultural land mutated in his name and for that reason Sanjhu Ram filed a case in the Court of ’I‘ehsildar which is pending and on account of that case accused Ram Singh was disturbed and he was having animosity against Sanjhu Ram and that is why on the fateful day the accused Ram $ingh was searching Sanjhu Ram to conduit his murder. He reached the held whete Sanjhu Ram was working and he chased him for committing his murder and ulu'mately he reached the house of Maya Ram and committed the munier of Maya Ram. Deceased Shani Ram was the uncle of Sanjhu Ram, the accused was under the impression that Shani Ram and Maya Ram were taking the side of Sanjhu Ram therefore he assaulted both of them and committed their murder. He went in search of Sanjhu Ram at his residence Where Sanjhu Ram was not present; therefore? he assaulted Sukhri Bai. Thus the prosecution has been ahile to prove the motive behind the crime in question. 26. So far as the second circumstance is concerned, Balveer Singh Rajput (P.W.10) Inspector has stated that after registering the casewhe reached the village-Gala along with slall‘, and prepared panchnama of the body of Shani Ram and Maya Ram. Panchnama of the dead body of Shani Ram is P/ 1, which bears his signature h‘om ‘c’ to ‘c’. He prepared thc site plan of both the places. EX.P/ 19 is the site pm/ Inner/me- ... \ 15 the housc of Ram Singh where dead body of Shani Ram was