g -.3 •.%:...£' 9 ft' : S" ^ff' l^ ' •' ?? a ::^«NHM ^-l^^^ 1~1 B S rs % S S, t.! '^ 1 nl1 .^1 "1-'^t: &i-": ^ •n W gj S 'B n ? g. s- W-~ w "Efe ^ ' O ^- Q ^* O' It'S.6^ a fa~ s s'«i '^ ^ [B -. a f§&; p-m p. P~ in g-sl?l n ;. »; 'a. " » o <•?• B' a''S f'^^: ^ ,r^^t !-S-.i g.J^ g' s y^ M ~&3 W 1 ^ M ®ss"' ©» mOH COURT OF CHHATTKGASH : BILASFUR CRnUNALAPPBAI. N0. 952 OF 1989 Khuliir alias Naadu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh CORAM : HON'BLBSHm FAKHRUDDIN, J a» HOWBLE SHK DIUP DESHaroKH, J Ku. Minu Banerjee, counsel for the appeUant Shri Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate for (he State. JUDOMBNT PER DIUP DESHBTOKH.J Heard on merits. 2. In (tiis jail appeal, fhe appellant stands cc»mricted under Section 302 of I.P.C. ftw commttting murder of his wife Suadari Bal in the intervening iright of 6th and 7a Maroh 1988 by means of a Tan^ ui vill^e Kanchanpiw, P.S. Sonhat '^^ 3. Briefly stated the prosecution stoiy is that foUowilag a quarrel between the appellant and Sundari Bai in fhe mterveaung n^ht of 6U1 and 7& March 1988, the appellaat dealt a fatal| blow on the iieck ofSundari Bai by means of Tangi. Sundari Baij died uistantaneously. The appellant fled away. Shiwatan Singh P1W. l lodged fhe Merg intmiation. Dead body of (he decease<l| was recavered near a well under a Jambolan tree. Panchnama Ex. P-8| was prepared. The deafh of Sundari Bai having been luiider i:! ; ::1! i: suspidous circumstanees, the dead body was sent for |posti P1 \aM:-ii^ (•.jiUuiu-iitfi K ^- *-^ s- morteni exammatiorL Dr. Ashish Karan P.W. 8 who conducted fhe autopsy on 7-3-1988 found one aate mortem ineised wound 3" x 3" x 2" bone deep present over left lateral aspect of neck of fhe level of 4th and 5th cervical vertehra. Woiind was centered at its peripheiy. AU muscles were cut Fifth cervical vertebra was also cut and spinal eord was also completety tTansected. Carotid arteries were cut. The doctoropined fhat deafh was homicidal due to syncope out of haemorrh^ic shock and neiirc^enic shock due to transactfon of spmal cord. The accused appellant afiter committing g-uesome mi.irder of his wife fled away. It was found that the accused had made an extra judiGial coirfession before Gorelal P.W. 13 regardir^; mnrder of his wife. Invest^atfon progressed. At fhe memorandum of fhe accused dated 18-3-1988, handle of fhe Tangi which was blood stained was seized vide EK. P-5 from Karri foresfc Vide Ex. P-12, blood stained Blade of the Tangi was seized fl-om the house of Nanhu Pando on 18-3-1988. \%de Ex. P-6, one blood stained Towel was seized on 19-3-1988. Upon being sent for chemicalexainination, vide Ex. P-18 presence of blood was confirmed on the blade of Tan^ and Towel wlrich were recovered at (he instance of accused appellanfc Upon completion ofinvestigation, the accused appeUant was put to trial. The accused appellant abjured his guilt. Rrosecution examined P.W. 1 Shivratan Siagh who had lodged fhe Mergr intimation Ex. P- 9 and also for Panchiiama of dead body ofSundari Baivide Ex. P- 2. P.W. 2 Labango and P.W. 4 Dhannpal Sir^h were exammed! as witaesses who had last seen the appeBant wifh fhe deceased in ® the intervenii^; iright of fhe occurrence. Dr. Ashish Karan P.W. 8 was examined to prove the autopsy and tfae nature of deafh of Sundari Bal. P.W. 1 Shivratan Singh and P.W. 10 Etriday Sii^h were examined as witnesses of memarandum of the accused Ex. P- 11 and recoveiy of fhe blood stained blade of the Tangi vide seizure Ex. P-12 made fhereunder and uwestigating officer B.S. Kerketa P.W. 12 was examuied by fhe prosecution to testify regarding the memorandum of accused appeUant Ex. P-11 and recovery of fhe handle ofTai^ Bx. P-5 and the blade thereofvide Ex. P-12 as also the recovery of blood stained Towel of Che accused appellant vide Ex. P-6. 4. Leamed trial Court recorded conviction of fhe appellant on the basis offhe following dreumstances:- (i) fhat the appeUant and fhe deceased were husband and wife and were last seen on the intervening njght of occurrence; (ii) that fhe appellant had made extra judicial confession befiare P.W. 13 Ocwelal fhat he bad kiUed his wife and at the mstance of appellant, blade of fhe Tangi as well as the handle fhereofwere recovered andseized; (iii) that there were blood stains on fhe handle aad fhe blade of fhe Tangi and towel seized fl'om fhe appellant vide Ex. P-6; (iv) that fhe accused appellant did iiot inform about fhe death of his wife to police or anybody else and fled finm the viUage for hiding. 5. Leamed counsel for the appellant has assaUed the impugned judgioent on fhe grourid thatfheextrajiidicialcanfcssioncannot [JJ ...l..,i iillln lii miiiiii ^- be the sole basis for recordiag canvicdon of fhe accused appeUant. She further contended fhat fhe chain of circuinstantial evideace does not lead to the irreslstible conclusion of the guflt of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant deserves to be acqiritted. 6. On fhe ofher hand, leamed Qovemment Advocate supported fhe judgment aad contended that the circumstantial evidence proved in the instant case brings home fhe guUt of fhe appeUant and, therefore, fhere is no mfinnity in the judgment of fhe trial Court I 7. We have gone fhrou^i the evidence led by fhe proseeution in this case and have given our fhoughtful cor^ideiation to fhe arguments advaaced by the leamed counsel for (he rival parties. 8. The law relatmg to appreciation of circumstantial evidence has been laid down by the Apex Court ia the case of Dhananjoy Chatterjeev. State ofW.B. reported in (1994)2 SCC 220 as under:- "In a case based on circumstantial eridence, the circunistanees fromwluch the conclusion ofguUtis to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the drcmnstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only wifh the hypotllcsls of thc guilt of 'thc accuscd. Thosc circumstaiices should not be capable of being j explalned by Say other typothesis except the guitt of j fhe accused and the chaia of fhe evidence must beso coniplete as not to leave any reasonable grouxid for the beliefconsistentwithth&umocenceoftheaccused." 8. Smularty, in Gura Sinph v. State of Raiasthan reported ini (2001)2 SCC 205, the law relating to appreciation of evidencq relating to extra-judicial coafession has beea laid down that esctra- S.^..:ii^...fe.^| judicial confession inade by the accused-appellant, if voluntary, beuig not obtained by coercion, inducement or promise of favour can form fhe sole basis of conviction and corroboration would be required only by way of abundantcaution. 8. In view of the law laid down by fhe Apex Coiirt relating to circumstantial evideace, we shall now consider the evidence led by the prosecution r^srding the links in fhe chain of circiimstantial evidence. So far as the evidence regarding the appellant having been last seen wifh fhe deceased on the intervemng n^ht of occurrence is concemed, the testimony of P.W. 2 Labango and P.W. 4 Dharmpal Singh is wholty unrebutted and clearly establishes fhat fhey had seen the appellant with his wife in the intervening n^ht of occurrence. Dharmpal Singh P.W.4 is (he witoness whose presence at fhe house of fhe appeUant is natural since he had gone fhere for cansimiing tpbacco and smoking Bidi and remalned fhere for about half an hour. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-exammadon to rebut his testunony. Similarly P.W. 2 Labaiigo knew the appeUant and fhe deceased and remembered fhat in the intervenii^ night of fhe occurrence at about 8.00 P.M., both the appellant and fhe deceased wera passing in front of her house and had demanded some fire. Her testim.ony is also un-rebutted in cross-exammation. 9. So far as fhe extrajudicial confession made by fhe appeUant before P.W. 13 Gorelal is concemed, we have very niinutely gone throu^i fhe testimony of P.W. 13 GorelaL Ctorelal has deposed m, :S. -•lls;.-.tr Ji|;|.:.LiLt!i)ILtfctlBUtiit CL^ \.{~- ^^ para 2 of his testimony that accused appeUant had come to his house on Tuesday aftemoon and said fhat some mcident had taken place and upon beir^; asked by hun, narrated fhat there was a quarrel wifh his wife duitog which his vnfe had filfhily abused him and when despite being resisted by him his wife persisted in hurling filfhy abuses and also threw bumir^ piece of wood on him, he got annoyed and killed his wife by means of a TaiigL In cross-examtnation, he has further iiarrated fhat the accused appeUant had divu^ed that fhe entire incident had occurrad at viUage Karri. On bein^ asked, jn para 5, he onty said that he did iiot tell about the extrajudicial confession made by the appeUant to ajnybody in fhe viUagp. Apart from fhis, fhere is absohitety 110 challei^e at all to the testimony af Qorelal in cross- exammation. Notfamg has been elictted in the cross-exammafion to show fhat ttus witness bears any grudge aggdnst fhe appeBanti or bss any axe to grind against (he appeBant It was not even| suggested by tfae defence in cross-exammatkHi that this witnessi did not convey fhe mft}rmatk>n given by fhe accused to him to any vitl^er. Thus upon a careful exammation of the testimony off Gorelal P.W. 13, we find fhat the testimony inspires confidence. (0) So far as the iiature of the injury sustained by fhe deceasedj is concemed, the testimony of Dr. Ashish Karan P.W.8| establishes beyond doubt that Sundari Bai dled a honuGidal| death. The recovery afhandte ofTangi and fhe blade fhereof at the) ;. instaiice of accused has also been hroi^ht home by tihfi jtestiman.^ of witnesses P.W. 1 Shivratan Smgh and P.W. 10 Hriday SingU a,l,.^tv.J.:iii:liuyL.i ?nr? FTIt:rf:rT t passnosip 3ABq a^ "uodn p&nai aq iou pinoqs uoissajuoo iBpipnf Tssfxa 3Tp ^ecp pspua^uoo lueiiaddB sq^ JQJ issunoo paiuByi •OT •3TUU3 aq^tii pssnooB srpjo AtpTidmoo SUR sauguoo ajiA siq jo tp^esp aip -»noqB aonod aq^ uuojm tou pTp sq -(eqi IOBJ aip osfv pue uoiirejnp Suoi B joj aouaunooo aip jaye pasnaaB sqi jo aouasqa aip 'AiKquoo SIR UQ 'pssnooB aiR ai aoipnfajd Are l.noqiiA papnpaoo 8uiaq SBA uoi^pisaAai 'tw.o Aoqs 01 sao8 ipiqAaouapua aiqipajo paioanoo 8uiABq ssyB pgsnooB SIQ. jo Atpiidmoo gq^ inoqe psgspBs SBA aq jaye •^UBIiadde aqi paisaue aseo IUBISUI QVQ. ui jaogjo 8up.re8RS3Aui aqj, •pa^saxre aq pinoo pire 3iqB[reAB SBA pasnooB SVQ aiaqA aseo B iou ST ii -sousjap srp dpq iou ssop 11 pue uoitusiuoo STCO a(BpaiddB 0} TreJ ^A Tiyiqnop uoi^BgiisaAUi srp sjapuai pssnooB aip §ugsaire iii sAp gi jo jfe[3p aip ysfy. papuatuoo iireiiadd^ 8ip JQJ psunoo paiueai 'souaunooo aip jaye tiiBnsddB pssnooB aq} guRsauB m yfeiap aip spjegM sy 'sureis pooiq p^q ^uBnsddB pasnooB aqi mo^ pazias pAOi atp fBV^ saqsnqwtsa OSIB u -ItrenaddB aip jo aoiiK»sut aqt •(6 aipireq syi se naA SB iSirej, jo aipiieq aip jo AjaAooai jo mruoq: aip qsnqBisa 01 spfe uoaq ssq uoiinoascud aqi fBVft pug pue Bt85{j35rg-g ^ •A-d jso^o gup^iissAm jo ^uompsai sip SB naA se QT 'M'd il8UIS ^topuH pcre f •^•dq8ms irei^auuqg jo AuoTORsai aijp qSncxn.p auo8 8ABq SM "AuomRsat jisto ui tuap AUB afeaio 01 UOCTBUIUIBXS-SSOJO Jisqi ui patpna uaaq saq SuiqiON •yuByaddv pasnooa aip ysw^Se Atisomiire ^UB jeaq "(,uop Aqj, -sassaiQiA ^uspuadapui are sassaiqiA assqj, ^wa»^t^Ki»» ISW ii heremabove and found that the testimony of Gorelal P.W. 13 is reliable and it has righfly been relied upon along wifh ofher drcumstances and the appeUant has ri^ifly been convlcted. II. Having fhus considered, we are of the opmion that fhe foUowii^ luiks in fhe chain of circumstantial evidence have been fuUy establishedagaiast fhe accused appeUant which lead onty to 1'-.I the hypothesis of his guUt (i) that fhe accused appeUant was last seen wifh his wife in the intervening iiight before fhe occurrence; (ii) fhat the accused appellant had made extrajudicial coirfession before fhe P.W. 13 Qorelal regardingthe offence; (iii) that fhe blood stains on fhe handle of fhe Tangi and Towel seized from fhe accused appeUant were found; and (iv) that the accused appeUant did not mform about the deafh ofhis wife to the police or anybody else. Thus fhere is no infirmity in fhe im.pi.^ned judginent The findings are well recorded. J^^appeal fails and is accordmgly dismissed. ,sdl~. ~ l ^ Sd/. "n —f . Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^ 1 Judge 1^/6/2005 16/6/2005 Ut! ij^hak/-