Crlminal ppeal No. 142 of 2001 A Allram Vs. Staw of Ghhattisgarh Judge ‘f—W’ ;\ i Va v 'V \\ L77 , HON’BLE SHRIV.K.SHRIVAS AVA V Sd/- i‘ .’K.‘Shrivastav Judge 1 PST FOR JUDGMENT ON ['1 NOVEMBER 200 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ; DI-HRENDRA MSW d [ ‘ O 6 ‘ L \ HIGH C(‘JUQT OF C‘HHAI ILSQAFRH AT ‘ILASF’U‘FR rn‘ru'rMAL A'plpEAI Mn 14?»!191 Appeiiam: Aiiram, Son of Shri Te‘rkuram, aged abouf 38 year-s, Rio. viHage Jagfara, R5. Balad, Diwt Durg (5.6.) vhauuau‘n u.- I‘v. ¢ ".1 av Versus Eespondenf: Sfafe of Chhaffisgarh, Through P5. Balod, Disff. burg (CG) (KER/KM: DB: HGNELE $H§i VI. $H§IVASTAVA é Hnki'§l E S'LJQI DHIDEKIEDA MTGHDA J3 PEESEN€E v. uunxu, v . vwuuu. n nu "nun. uuuuv for appeiian‘r Aiiram. L. c+..+.. I IVI‘ an... u “unwwnn "um” nun gr. N_K’ Chm/In p Adun»n+b wgft. Ka RH” Mug-Inna, Advnrnu 5hr§ 5.3, Waawani, Addi. Public Prcsacafar, fm" he wum. JUTDGIVIENT Per Dhirandm Mishra J. The appeiianf has preferred fhis criminai appeai under Secfion 374(2) of The Céde of Criminai Procedure againsf Judgmenf daTed 94-2601 passed by iearned' Addifionai Sessions Judge, Baiod in Sessions Triai No 88/99 whereby offer khoid'ing fhe appeiianf guiify under Secfion 302 of indion Pena? Code for causing d'em‘h of his wife Bhagvanfin Bai, he has been senfenced fo undergo imprisonmen‘r for life. Aiiegafion againsf the appeiianf is f'haf on 9u6-1998 at about 00.30 : hrs. pasf midnight, The appeiianf kiiied his wife by 'rhroffiing. “Reporf of Ex. P— 6 of The incidenf was iodged by fhe appeiianf himseif on 9-6-1995 of obouf 08.3C) o.m. On fhe memorandum of Ex. P—i of The oppeiianf, dead hody of fhe deceased Shogvonfin Bai was recovered from agricuifurai fieid of Naresh Vishwakorma vide Ex. P—Z. inquesf of Ex. P—3 of fhe dead body was prepared inrpresence of wifnesses. The dead body of Bhagvanfin ‘Bai was senf for if autopsy fo Governmen‘l' Hospifai/ Eaiod where Dr. Anii Agrawai (T’.W.10) conducfed posi' morfem and submif‘red his reporf of Ex. P—5. Sife pian of Ex. F-Q was prepared by Sfafion House Officer affer compiefing invesfigafion. Charge-sheef was fiied in The Courf of Judiciai magisTr-afe Firs’r Ciass, Baiod who in furn commiffed fhe case fo fhe Cour? of Sessions Judge, burg and fhe 2‘ same was received on Transfer For Triai by iear‘ned' Addi‘rionai Sessions Judge, Baiod'. 3. Charge under SecTion 302 of 1.P.C. was framed againsf fhe appeiian‘r who abjured his guiif. 4. The prosecufion in order f0 estabiish charges againsf fhe oppeiianf examined ii wifnesses in aii, Thereaffer sfafemenf of accused was recorded‘ under Secfion 313 of CrP.C. in which f'he appeiian‘l‘ denied The circumsfances appearing agains‘r him and pieaded innocence and faise impiicafien. He has sfated fha‘r he had gone fo Poiice Sfm‘ion To iodge missing reporT of his wife and has expressed his suspicion on Rai Singh, however he has been faiseiy made accused in The above crime. AfTer hearing The counsei for The appeiianT and The AddiTionai Pubiic ProsecuTor, The iearned AddiTionai Sessions Judge convicTed and senTenced The appeiianT as menTioned above. b. Homicidai deaTh of The deceased BhagvanTin Bai is noT in dispuTe. Even oTher wise, from sTaTemenT of P.W. 10 Dr. Anii Agrawai and posT morTem reporT of Ex. P-5, in which he has found abrasion over iefT eibow, iefT shouider, Three abrasions on The back, abrasion on The iefT forearm, iefT side of index finger, righT eibow and arm and righT shouider, 2 abrasions were aiso spoTTed over righT scapuiar region, 5 abrasions of differenT sizes were found over neck, The DocTor opinioned ThaT excepT The abrasions found on The neck, aii oTher abrasions were caused by‘hard and rough objecT whereas The abrasions on The neck couid be caused by appiicaTion of force Through hand and on inTernai examinaTion, he found aii The parTs of The body congesTed and noTiced froThy maTeriai in Trachea, which was swoiien and The Dr. has opined ThaT The iady died due To cardio respiratory faiiure as a resuiT of asphyxia caused by ThroTTiing and The same was homicidai in naTure, homicidai deaTh of deceased QhagvanTin Bai is esTabiished. 6. Learned counsei for The appeiianT submiTs ThaT There is no eye- wiTness To The incidenT. Body of The deceased was found from open fieid. However, The CourT beiow has convicTe‘d The appeiianT on The basis of circumsTanTiai evidence and The circumsTances reiied upon by The CourT beiow z yawA'w g .1..7 ..‘ .4 . v l ® v“:- are circumsfances of Iasf seen, fhe repor'r of The inciden? was iodged by 1"he appeiianf, fhe body of The deceased was recovered on 1"he memorandum of f'he appeiianf. I? is argued The? aii The circumsfances reiied’ upon by The friai Cour? have nof been proved. The finding of ins? seen is based on The sfafemem‘ of K'u. Laiifa {P.W. 7) a chiid wifness and daugh‘rer of fhe appeiiam and The deceased fhough fhis wifness has sfafed Tha’r when she ief‘l‘ her home for grand mo‘rher‘s house, her mofher and fofher were in fhe home and in The nexf morning, she iearn‘r tha‘r her mofher is dead and odmiffediy fhe body was found from The fiied. Counsei Turfher submiTs ThaT reiiance has been piaced on recovery of The dead body on informafion of The appeiianT however, from The evidence of The wiTnesses, iT is evidenT ThaT dead body of The deceased was seen much before The same‘was recovered by The poiice and The'body was found from open piace and The moTive has noT been esTabiished. 7. On The oTher hand iearned counsei for The STaTe has supporTed The A JudgmenT of The Trial CourT Piacmq reliance m The maTTers of @esla -V- 5mfe of Biker reporTed m AIR ‘gimoo 1T has been submTTTed ThaT The TIrsT inTormaTion reporT iodqed by The accused himseif can be used Tor The purposes of IdenTITymq The accused as The maker oT The reporT and The same may be used as provnded under 5ecTIon d/ of The twdence AcT. 8. We have heard iearned counsei for The parTies. We have aiso perused The impugned judgmen‘r and ocuiar'and documenTary’evidence avaiiabie on record. 9. ConwcTlon oT The appellanT Is based on circumsTanTIal ewdence lhe eircumsTances repned upon by The Trial CourT Tor conwcTmq The appelianT x T may be summarized as under:— i. The appeiianT had seen his wife being raped and ThereafTer he was noT happy wiTh her and in The nighT of The incidenT, The appeiianT was seen in The company of The deceased in his house for The iasT Time TogeTher and ThereafTer her dead body was recovered from The fieid; ii. §eporT of Ex. P-6 was iodged'by The appeiianT; i iii. On The basis of informafion of The appeiian‘r, poiice reqisfered' the offence and’ proceeded for inves‘riqafion 1'0 The piace of ubeul'l'cnne, iv. On The memorandum of Ex. P—i of The accused, dead body of The deceased was recovered from T'he fieid of Naresh Vishwakorma. . So far as The firsT circumsTonce is concerned, iT is noT in disuTe ThaT e aeiianT wiTnessed The incenT of rae wiTh his wife. P.W. 6— Raf‘rirom s sToTed ThaT ofr The incidenT of rape, The oppiianT refused To keep agvanfin Boi wiTh him and had iefT r in his house and Thus iT i cieor ThaT e aiionT was noT ha wiTh The deceased. . So for as Th second circumsfance is concerned, RW. 7 K'u. LaiiTo— aughfer of e aeiianT and The deceased has caTeoricaii sTaTed ThoT on e Te of incideT, she aiong wiTh er broTher and sisTer wenT To nearb Th da n h y ouse of her randmoTher for sieein ieavin behind her moTher and faTher n om and in The nekT morning when she reTurned, she iearnT ThaT her moTher is dead. The facT ThaT in The nihT of The incidenT, The eceased was seen n e comany of Th aeiionT in Their house when she was aiive b Ku. aa as noT been choiiened and in The same nihT aT abouT 06.30 asT mngT, Te deceased was done To deaTh in The aricuiTurai fieid of Naresh waarma. This is a very sTrong circumsTance ogainsT The aeiianT and e appeanT has no expiained under whaT circumsTances, The deceased iefT his coman in The nihT of The incidenT. 12 . So far as The Third and fourTh circumsfances are concerned, iT is noT in dispuTe ThaT The appeiianT had iodqed The FirsT informafion ReporT in The 'foiice $TaTion and on The basis of his reporT, The offence was reqisTered and poiice proceeded for invesTigaTion Ta The scene of occurrence. The appeiianT had Tried To Take a defence ThaT in facT he had iodqed a missing reporT in The poiice sTaTion expressing his suspicion o’n Eoisinqh, however, The expianaTion oTTered by The appeiianT is on The face of iT faise as The appeiianT has faiied To explain The circumsTonce under which The deceased iefT The house in The nighf of The incidenT afTer he was seen inher company bMqhTer LaiiTa. . 5; wWr— r~ iigTW 4\ 7 10 p Th pp id p ha fe e Bh he s Th ppe ppy 11 e d Th pp qy h q pq q i he q d i Th p e pp y LliT h q q p idih h q Vishk pp Th lI T py q f H ha d ic persons abouT The dead body and he had Taken The poiice and Then The dead body was recovered. Thus from The sTaTemenT of P.W. 11' which is corroboraTed by PW. i ChaiTram, P.W. 2 Vishnuram and PW. 3 Chandra GupT on maTeriai parTicuiars, The facTum of recovery of The dead body aT The insTance of appeiianT is esTabIished. 3. On The basis of aforesaid anaiysis, we are of The considered opinion ThaT The prosecuTion has proved The charqes aqainsT The appeiianT beyond all reasonabie doubT wiTh The heip of circumsTanTiai evidence as described above and The CourT beiow has noT commiTTed any infirmiTy or iiieqaiiTy in hoiding The appeiianT quiiTy and convicTinq and senTencinq him under SecTion 302 oT The J..P.C. 14. In The resuiT, The appeai preferred by The appeiianT is devoid of subsTance and The some deserves To be dismissed and is accordingiy i "# Sd/- ~ i DI-DRENDRA NHSI-EA 1 ' Judge .’/ ‘ v “i 41—2096 V.’K.Shrivastava ‘Judge t v \ 1—20% dismissed. qq in ii oy q FW. ii- 8. K barre-The invesfiqa‘rinq Cfficer M5 sfa‘red’ 'rhaf memorandum of ’r‘ne appeiianf of Ex. P-i was recorded by him and The appeiiam had informed ’r'haf he has ieff The dea& body in 1'he fiied and Teak 'him To The fieid where recovery memo of Ex. P-Z of The dead‘ body was prepared. P.W. 1- Chaifmm has admiTTed his siqnaTur-es aver Ex. P—i and Ex. P-Z, Though he has sTaTeci ThaT The appeiianT dioi noT make any sTaTemenT regarding recovery OT The dead body buT in para 5 of his cross-examinaTion, he has denied The T suesTian ThaT his siqnaTures were obTained in The documenT wiThouT reaeiq. Simiiariy PW. 2 Vishnuram who is aiso wiTness of documenTs tx. P—l and Ex. P—Z has sTaTed ThaT on inTerroqaTion, The accused had conTessed his guT and had qone wiTh The poiice for The purposes of recovery of The dead hd. in The tress-examinaTion in para 5 by The CaurT, This wiTness has coTeoricaiiy admiTTed ThaT The appeiianT had ied The poiice To The Tield from where The dead body was recovered. Simiiar is The sTaTemenT of P.W. 3 Cndra GupT who is aiso The siqnafory of Ex. P-Z of The recovery memo of The ead body. This wiTness has aiso sTaTed ThaT Aiiram had informed The poie i Sd/- 4 1 . T ii ii ‘