Onooooowoomm 9552 mmnns ?‘_§:m3 um? E 3Eqmm .mmamd avg“mg dogmga? “EMYuWMEUII\$ = ,L a om gandiEvwT W93g 443 gqmmag gTgm aama mm MN ma kEmE41§ %,3 an: m~34 gum dqmmdwgomow /, Nw§wvm ,u £m=§§t§TsFNsmN N. ¢ w mMm. u! £‘l'llll an? grim5g3émM mmm‘QM: @wmmq m W ¥Ji§i§§§ .7 :,:.t..!r E‘gr , u Iulll|III|‘.JI|III‘IIIIII|IIII|I|III|II. 5 HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘I‘TISGARH AT BIIASPUR, Griminal Appeal No. 3057] 1998 Roshan Sahu Vs. state of M.P. [Now Chhattlsgarh) Vi Jjudgnent for consideration ' Sdl- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 06—10—2005 ’ " VJ Hon’ble Shl'i Justice L.¢. Bhadoo K Sdl- L.C.BHADOO Judge a7 40-2005 .K%PW Post for €37 40-2005 ‘ Sdl— $ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge i 06 40-2005 @ HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘ISGARH AT BII‘ASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 3057/ 199s Roshan Sahu Vs. State of M.P. (Now Chl ttlsgarh) Cotam :-HON’BLE SHE! JUSTICE L.C.BHADOO k ‘ V ‘ HON’BLE SHR! JUSTICE DILW W3 DESHMUKH, JJ Present :- Shri Abhay Tiwari, Counsel for the appeliant. ‘ Shn' Devesh Verma, Panel Lawyer for the State. [The followigg Juggent k delivered onOZ 40-2005) Per Dilip Raosaheb Deehmukh. J. l. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28-11- 1998 delivered by Shn' Raghubir Singh, Illld Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Case No. 216/ 1998 wheleby the appellant was convicted under Secu'on—302 of the I.P.C. for commim’ng mmder of Ajay Gupta on 27-03-1998 at about 10.30 P.M. near Rahul Pan Palace, Moudaha Pam, Raipur and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a f'me of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of due to undergo addiu'onal n'gomus imprisonment for one month. 2. It is not disputed that the deceased Ajay Gupta, Amar Gupta and Neelesh Gupta are the sons and Sita Gupta PW-6 is the daughter of Budhsen Gupta PW-2. 3. The prosecution story is that the appellant Roshan Sahu had an eye over Sita Gupta PW-6 and use to chase and tease her nequently. ln March-1998, on the day next after Holi at about 8 P.M., the appellant In in a drunken state came to the house of Budhasen Gupta and mthily abusing them said that he would forcibly take! away Sita Gupta. This annoyed Amar Gupta PW-l, his brother Neelesh and niends Jitendra PW-3 and Ashok Sahu who beat him. The appellant went away threatening that he would also kill them one by one. On 27—03-1998 at about 10.30 P.M., the deceased Ajay Gupta who used to sell h‘uits on a tmlley was returning home. 0n the road going § " $ towanis Badhai Para, in hont of Rahul Pan Palace, g the appellant assaulted him with a sharp Iuiife on the left side of chest. Naresh Kumar (not examined by the prosecution) informed about the occurrence to Amar Gupta PW-l who was in a nearby lane. Amar Gupta PW-l rushed to the spot and saw that the appellant who was running towards Badhai Para with a knife in his hand was being chased by Jeetendra PW—3 and Neelesh. He along with Jitendra PW‘3 and his brother Neelesh saw the injured Ajay Gupta bleeding profusely horn the stab injury on left side of chest and took him to Life Worth Hospital. Since the Doctor was not present there, the Compounder placed a cotton and bandage on the wound in the chest of Ajay Gupta and thereafter they took Ajay Gupta to Medical College Hospital, Raipur for treatment in‘ an Auto Rickshaw. 0n way, Ajay Gupta told them that while he was returning home with his Fruit Trolley, near Rahul Pan Palace, the appellant Roshan Sahu assaulted him with a knife on the chest and ran away. Ajay Gupta succumbed to the injury before reaching the Medical College Hospital, Raipur. The Doctor on duty at the Medical College Hospital, Raipur examined Ajay Gupta and declared him brought dead. Information was sent to Police Station— Moudhapaia vide Ex.P- 16. Dead body of Ajay Gupta was kept at the Mortuary. Station House omcer, Moudhapara, registereti merg intimation vidc EX.P- 17 at 11‘40 P.M. In the meanwhile, Budhsen‘Gupta PW-2 along with his Wife apd daughtels ran towanis the place of occurrence but till then Ajay Gupta had been taken by Amar Gupta, Neelesh, Jitendra etc. to the hospital. 4. Amar Gupta PW-l lod‘ged the F.I.R. on 27—03— 1998 at 11.30 P.M. vide Ex.P—1 in Police Station—Moudhapara, ‘* ‘ Raipur. Sub Inspector F.J.Minj PW— 10 leached the i mortuary of Medical College Hospital, Raipur and pmpared inquest memo vide EXP-3. He intermgated the appellant Roshan Sahu on the intervening night of 27th 8r, 28th March, 1998 at 00.30 Hrs, and on the basis of his memorandum vide EXP—21 seized vide EXP-22, one Rampuri Spring lmife, of the shape of a nsh With a brass handle having blood like stains on the blade and a light orange shirt worn by the appellant which had blood like stains. It is alleged that upon arrival of the police, the appellant was hiding in his house and while tlying to climb the roof to escape, fell down and sustained injuries on the left foot, left knee, left hip. The appellant was medically examined vide EXP-25. The dead body of Ajay Gupta was sent for post—mortem examinan'on on 28-03- 1998. Dr. Sanjay Dadu, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Pt, Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Raipur PW-8, who conducted the autopsy on 28—03—1998 at 11.15 A.M., found the following injuries :- 1. Incised wound on Right leg at lower margin of tibial tuberosity lateral half region size 2 x 0.3 cm transverse, Marg'ns sharply cut angles acute, ski /r i/ deep. . Incised wound skin deep 5.0 cm above the right knee joint in midlinc posteriorly size 1.7 x 0.7 cm obliquely» vertical. Marg'ns shaxply cut. Angles acute. Upperend 11’1ted slightly laterally. . Incised wound skin deep on left buttock on upper 8n outer quadrant situated 4.0 cm below &. 4.0 cm medial to left iliac creast size 1.7 x 0.5 cm transverse margins éhalply cut, angles acute. . Incised wound over base of Left spine of scapula on back size 3 x 1.2 cm hansverse with flapping in upper and slicing in lower margin which are shaxply cut, skin deep. . Multiple diction abrasion on left shoulder lip in an area of 4.0 cm diameter. . Stab incised wound on left side of chest laterally on the line of left mid axillaJy line anterior situated 6.5 cm below the left anterior axillary line size 3x15 cm hansverse. Marg'ns sharp, anterior end acute, posterior end brooked. It had pierced up to left atrium for a length of 13.0 cm and had cut- led side 3rd rib lower Marg'n, Intracostal muscle, lett lung, pericanlinm in the hack. The direction was &om left to Right h‘om lateral to medial, n‘mn below upwards 85 anteriorly. Dr. Sanjay Dadu PW—8 opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of stab injury on left side of the chest. The injury was caused by hard, sharp peneuating single edged object and homicidal in nature and was suEcient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The Rampuri Spring knife seized nom the appellant vide Ex.P-22 was examined by Dr. Sanjay Dadu who opined vide report EXP-13 8r. EXP-14 that the injuries sustained by Ajay Gupta could be caused by the said knife. He also drew a sketch of the lmife vide Ex.P- 14 and found blood like stains on it. The said knife was sealed. A11 the articles mcnh'oned above were \sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science La_boratoxy, Raipur which opined vide report Ex.P- 15 that blood stains were present on the knife and clothes seized fmm the appellant on 28-03- 1998. After completion of investigau'on, the appellant was prosecuted under Section-302 of the I.P.C. 5.‘ V‘The appellant abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence i and false implication and did not lead any evidence in Adefence. ’l‘he prosecution examined as many as '11 witnesses. ‘The trial Judge relying upon the testimony of Amar Gupta PW~1, Budhsen Gupta PW-2, Jitendra PW-3, Sita Gupta PW-6, Dr. Sanjay Dadu P‘W-8, F.J. Minj, Sub—inspector PW- 10 and Sub-inspector Bahadm Singh Pw-9 held that the appcnant had the motive to kill Ajay Gupta and had intentionally caused the death of Ajay Gupta on the night of 27—03’ 1998 by stabbing with the knife on the left side of chest. The trial Judge accordingly convicted the appellant under Section-302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid in Para-1. 6. Lealned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that there was no legal and reliable evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the appellant under Section—302 of the I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt. It was argued that the evidence relating to oral dying declaration made by the deceased Ajay Gupta was wholly um'eliahle. lt was contended that Amar Gupta PW-l, Budhsen Gupta PW-2, Jitendra PW-3 and Sita Gupta PW-6 were highly interested witnesses, who were inimical to the appellant and could not be relied upon for want of independent corroboration. It was also contended ’th& /— / in the absence of the report of semlog'st, the prosecution had failed to prove the plesence of human blood on the clothes and knife seized h‘om the appellant. 0n the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued in support of the impugned judgment and contended that the evidence led by the prosecution established beyond doubt that the appellant who had the motive to kill Ajay Gupta, had intentionally caused his death by assaulting him with a knife on the left side of chest on the night of 27—03— 1998. We have consideled the rival contentions and have also minutely perused the record of Sessions Case No. 216/ 1998. F.I.R. Ex. P—l lodged by Amar Gupta PW-l shows that while he was in the lane in mnt of his house, his neighbour Nalesh Sahu had informed him that Roshan Sahu had assaulted his brother by a knife and on this information he immediately reached the spot and saw the appellant running towaids Badhai Para with a knife in his hand. The spot map Ex.P-2O pxepaxed by F.J.Minj, Sub-Inspector PW—lO shows that the place of occurrence is situated on the main road going h‘om Rathore Chowk to Badhai Para and was situated in n~ont of Rahul Pan Palace. 0n both sides of road near the place of occunence there of axe shops. However, considering the time occurrence the shops must have been closed. The evidence led by the prosecution does not show that Rahul Pan Palace was open at the time of occurrence. Amar Gupta PW—l has stated that at about 10.30 RM. on 27—03-1998 while 'he was in the lane, his neighbour Namsh Sahu informed him that the appellant Roshan Sahu stabbed his brother Ajay Gupta by a knife and was running towards Badhai V/ ‘ ‘ V Pala, He immediately reached near Ajay Gupta and saw that the appellant Roshan Sahu was running towaxds Badhai Para with a knife in his hand. In moss-examination, he has stated that when he saw Roshan Sahu running away with a knife, Jeetendra PW-3 and Neelesh were chasing Roshan and he saw that Ajay had sustained a wound in the left rib and was bleeding. When Jiténdla and Neelesh could not catch hold of Roshan Sahu he along with Naresh, ‘ Neelesh 6r. Jeetendra lifted Ajay Gupta and took him to Lifeworth Hospital situated nearby, where the A Compounder gave them cotton and bandage and asked them to take Ajay Gupta to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur, Thereafter, they took Ajay Gupta in an Auto Trolley to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur and on way he asked Ajay Gupta as to how this had happened. Ajay Gupta told him that while he was Ietmning ham Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, Roshan assaulted him in the left rib by a knife. The testimony of Amar Gupta PW-l is fully corroborated by Jeetendla PW-3 who has stated that while he was returning with Neelesh ham the Pan shop of one Arlm situated in Badhai Para, he saw that Roshan was assaulting Ajay Gupta by a knife near Rahul Pan Palace whereupon they went towards him and chased him till Badhai Para but Roshan threatened to assault them by a knife whereupon they returned to Ajay Gupta and saw that Ajay Gupta had an injury on the left side of chest and was bleeding profusely. From the spot map EXP—20, it appears plausible that Jeetendra PW-3 would have seen the appellant assaulu’ng Ajay Gupta by a knife, since he was going hem Badhai Para Road towards Rahul Pan Palace. Jeetendra PW—S has also stated that while Ajay Gupta was being taken to the hospital Amarf) Gupta PW-l had asked him aboui the incident whereupon Ajay Gupta told him that Roshan had assaulted him by a knife. This fact also &ds place in the prompt F.I.R. lodged by Amar Gupta PW-l in Police Station—Moudhapara, Raipur vide Ex.P—1. The testimony of Amar Gupta PW-l and Jcetendra PW-3 is comborated fully by the F.I.R. Ex.P-1. The medical i evidence of Dr. Sanjay Dadu FW—8 which has been :«J refei‘red by us in para-4 (supra) leaves no room for ‘ ‘* ‘any doubt that Ajay Gupta had sustained injuries by a sharp' object and death of Ajay Gupta was due to Aexcessive bleeding as a result of stab wound in the left side of chest. 10. Sub Inspector F.J. Minj PW-lO has tesiihed that at the instance of the appellant Roshan Sahu he had seimd vide EXP—22, a knife and blood stained shirt i hum the house of the appellant which articles were ‘ sent by him to Dr. Sanjay Dadu PW-8 for examination. Dr. Sanjay Dadu PW—8 has stated that the injuries sustained by Ajay gupta could have been inhicted by the knife which was sent for examination. The diagram Ex.P— 14 drawn by Dr. Sanjay Dadu PW-B shows that it was a deadly weapon. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P- 15 established that the knife and thelclothes seized hom the appellant had blood stains on it. The knife and blood stained shirt were seized from the appellant, on the night of occurrence itself. No explanation whatsoever has been od‘emd by the appellant in this regard. Budhsen Gupta law-2 has also stated that on 27—03-1998 at 10 P.M. he received information that Ajay gupta was stabbed with a knife by Roshan Sahu whereupon he rushed with his Wife and daughters to the place of occurrence but before he reached the place of occurrence, his son Amar Gupta had been taken by Ajay Gupta to the hospital. In cross—examination I’ft. Amar Gupta PW-l has categorically stated that he had seen Roshan running towaxds Badhai Para with a knife and Jeeyendra 8r, Neelesh were chasing him. Nothing has been elicited in the cross—examination of Amar Gupta PW-l, Jitendra PW—3 which would rebut their testimony or cmate a suspicion legarding their plesence at the scene of occurrence. The F.I.R. promptly lodged by ‘Amar Gupta PW-l fully ‘ corroborates their testimony. The medical evidence * “F 'also fully establishes that the death of Ajay Gupta was g 1 homicidal and caused due to stab wound in the left side of chest by a sharp object. The testimony of Jeetendra PW-S is consistent with the testimony of Amar Gupta PW-l. His presence at the scene of occunence is natural. His name also hnds place in the F.l.R. lodged by Amar Gupta PW‘l. The testimony of Jeetendra PW-3 inspires confidence and was rightly relied upon by the Trial Judge. ll. We are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of Amar Gupta P.W.1, Budhsen Gupta P.W.2 and Jitendra P.W.3 cannot be relied since they were highlyrinterested Witnesses. It is true that on 14.03.1998 an incident had taken place in which Amar Gupta P.W. 1, Jitendra P.W.3, the deceased Ajay Gupta and Neelesh had beaten the appellant who in a drunken state had spoken on‘ending words for Sita Gupta. It is also true that Amar Gupta P.W.l and Budhsen Gupta P.W.2 being the brother and father of the deceased and Jitendra P.W.3 being the hiend of the deceased were interested witnesses yet it is now well settled that the evidence of a witness cannot be discaided merely on the ground that he is an interested Witness, if his testimony is found credible. In Seaman vs. State By Inspector of Police reported in 2005 A.I.R. SCW 2705, the Apex Court held that a Witness could be a relative but that does not mean to reject his statement‘in totality. The relevant portion is r as under: - “ ......The witness could be a relative but that does not mean to mject his statement in totality. ln such a case, it is the paramount'duty of the court \to be mom careful in the matter of scruu'ny of evidence of the interested witness, and if, on such scrutiny it is found that the evidence on record of such interested sole witness is worth credence, the same would not be discarded merely on the ground that the witness is an intexested witness. Caution is to be applied by the court while scrutinizing the evidence of the interested sole Witness.” @ 10 So far as the non-examination of Naresh Kumar, the hrst informant of the occurrence is concerned, as held in Seeman (supra) the non- production of one independent Witness who has been named in the F.I.R. by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested witnesses and disbelieve the prosecution It is well settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which is required to be CaSC . judged by the Court to place credence on the statement. Viewed h‘om this perspective as already observed by us, we hnd that the testimony of Amar Gupta P.W.1 and Jitendra P.W.3 is trustworthy and consistent, their presence at the place of occurrence is natural and also hnds corroboration by the prompt F.I.R. lodged by Amar Gupta P.W. 1. 12. Budhsen Gupta PW-2 has stated that on 14—03- 1998, the appellant came in a drunken state and said that he would take away his elder daughter Sita Gupta PW—6 whereupon the appellant was beaten by his children. Thereafter, the appellant went away after threatening them. Sita Gupta PW-6 has also stated that Reshan Sahu used to tease her every day While she went to work at the Natraj Hotel and also used to ///< l3. /\\ chase her. Her testimony shows that the appellant had an eye upon her and had also said that he would h‘dnap her 01: dishguxe her face. It also shows that the appellant wanted to apply colour during Holi on the face of Sita Gupta. The F.I.R. Ex.P—1 mentions that on the day next after Holi, the appellant Roshan Sahu who was in a drunken state had said that one day he would take away Sita G’upta PW-6 and was beaten by Amar Gupta, Neelesh Gupta, the deceased Ajay Gupta and Jitendra PW-3. Testimony of Sita Gupta PW-6 shows‘that her brothers had beaten the appellant Roshan whereupon the appellant had threatened to kill thenr. This occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 14th March of 1998 i.e. 13 days prior to the occurrence. The appellant thus had the motive to kill Ajay Gupta in retaliation to the incident which took place on 14th March, 1998. Fmm the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has established the following points beyond doubt :- A. Jeetendra PW—3 had seen the appellant Roshan Sahu assaulting Ajay Gupta with a knife near Rahul Pan Palace. B. Jeetendra PW—3 chased Roshan Sahu who threatened to assault him by a knife C. Ajay Gupta had made an oral dying declaration to Amar Gupta PW-l that Roshan had assaulted him with a knife. D. Dr. Sanjay Dadu PW-8 found that Ajay Gupta had sustained several incised wound on his body and his death was caused due to excessive bleeding as a result of stab wound on the left side of chest. E. Sub—Inspector F.J.Minj WV-IO had, soon after the F.I.R. was lodged, seized a knife and clothes having blood like stains fmm the appellant. 12 F. Dr. Sanjay Dadu PW-8 had opined that the injuries sustained by Ajay Gupta could b have been caused by a lm1fe wh1ch was sewed mm the appellant Immedlately after the occmrence at 1 A M and wh1ch had i blood hke stams G. The report of Fomnsic‘Science Laboratory EX.P- 15 established that the knife and clothes seized h‘om the appellant immediately aher the occuuenoe had blood stains for which no explanation was OW by the appellant. l u. ‘ ‘ p H The appellant had the motive to kill Ajay t Gupta. 14. Fmm the.abovementioned established facts, in our considered- opinion the prosecution has successmlly established the guilt of the appellant under Section-302 of the I.P.C. for committing murder of Ajay Gupta on the night of 27—03— 1998. The injuries sustained by Ajay Gupta, the weapon with which the injmies weie caused and the stab wound at the left side of chest which had pierced up to the left atrium up to a length of 13 cm and had also cut the left side /" , of thixd rib lower margin, innacostal muscle, left lung and pericaidinm establishes that the appellant had intentionally caused the death of Ajay Gupm by assaulting him with a knife. We, therefore uphold the conviction of the appellant under Section—302 of the I.P.C. and the sentence awarded themunder by the Trial Court. 15. In the result there is no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed Sdl- V .ii [xi/j ‘ 5d! x ' L.c BHADoo ‘J Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judged Judge $7,;Atlo-2oo5 w‘ ’67 # 10-2005 Satish