Krishna Sahu @ Lala Ram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District- Durg,

C.G. in Sessions Case No.293 of 2013 on 31.01.2015 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. for causing intentional death of deceased

Shobhit Sahu and sentencing him with life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.100/- and also convicting the appellant under Section 307 of I.P.C. for

causing injury to Hemuram (P.W.-3) with intention to cause his death and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment of 10 years along with fine of

Rs.100/-.

According to the prosecution case, the information was received in the Police Station Utai regarding murder of Shobhit Sahu. I.A. Khairani (P.W.-

14) arrived on the spot. Complainant- Arun Kumar Sahu lodged the unnumbered F.I.R. at 11:45 AM, that his brother Shobhit Sahu was murdered by

the appellant/accused by inflicting injury with a sickle. Horilal Sahu (P.W.-06) is the eye witness of the incident. According to prosecution, the

appellant in attempt to cause death of Hemuram (P.W.-03) inflicted one injury on his neck with sickle and he also threatened Sarpanch- Roshni

Mishra and her husband Rajkumar Mishra to cause their death.

On the information given by Arun Kumar Sahu (P.W.-2), the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.-P/25) was recorded on 25.07.2013 at 11:45 AM, numbered F.I.R.

(Ex.-21) was recorded and Merg Intimation (Ex.-P/20) was also recorded by the Investigating Officer. Panchanama of the dead body was conducted

vide Ex.-P/3. Post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Shobhit Sahu was conducted by Dr. P. Akhtar (P.W.-10). According to Post-mortem

report (Ex.-P/18), the death of deceased-Shobhit Sahu was caused and the same was homicidal in nature. The case was further investigated, in which

the seizure of articles were made, statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The seized articles that is the blood stained

clothes of deceased Shobhit Sahu and injured Hemu Ram Sapaha (P.W.-3), the blood stained clothes of the appellant, the blood stained soil of the spot

of incident and the blood stains present on the sickle seized from the appellant were sent for F.S.L. examination of which the report Ex.-P/27 was

received mentioning the presence of human blood on all the articles and the sickle. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against

the appellant.

The appellant was charged with commission of offences under Section 302, 307 and 506 of I.P.C. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty. The

prosecution examined in total 14 witnesses. The appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied all the

incriminatory evidence present against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. No other ground of defence was taken and

neither any witness was examined in defence. The learned trial Court has by the impugned judgment acquitted the appellant from charge under

Section 506 of I.P.C., however, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein-before.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of conviction against the appellant is bad in law. The prosecution has failed

to bring evidence against the appellant of the nature beyond reasonable doubt. The contradiction and omission present in the evidence of the witnesses

makes them unreliable, therefore, the conviction against the appellant is not sustainable. Prayer has been made to allow the appeal and acquit the

appellant from all the charges against him.

Learned State counsel opposes the grounds raised in the appeal and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is

submitted that the prosecution has brought the evidence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is clearly proved that the appellant is the

person, who has caused death of the deceased Shobhit Sahu and also caused fatal injury to the injured witness Hemu Ram Sapaha (P.W.-3).

Although the eye witness Horilal Sahu (P.W.-6) has not supported the prosecution case but there is evidence of extra judicial confession made by the

appellant present in the statement of witnesses, therefore, the conviction against the appellant under Section 302 and 307 of I.P.C. both are

sustainable. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record.

Considered on the submissions, Horilal Sahu (P.W.-6) was examined as eye witness, who has stated that he was told by Hemu Ram (P.W.-3)

about the assault made upon him by the appellant but he has not made any statement regarding the assault on the deceased Shobhit Sahu by the

appellant for which he has been declared hostile. He has further denied all the suggestions given by the prosecution regarding the incident with respect

to the deceased Shobhit Sahu.

Arun Kumar Sahu (P.W.-2), the brother of the deceased has stated that one unknown person informed him that his brother has been murdered.

The witness went to the spot and found the dead body of his brother Shobhit Sahu. The persons present on the spot informed him that appellant had

caused death of his brother. He was not present on the spot when the deceased was assaulted and done to death.

Hemu Ram Sapaha (P.W.-3) has stated that on the date of incident, appellant inflicted injury on deceased- Shobhit Sahu with a sickle and caused

his death. Subsequent to that, the appellant came and sat on the platform in front of his house and he was making a statement that he has murdered

the deceased- Shobhit Sahu with a sickle and now it is the turn of the witness himself. The appellant then inflicted one injury on the witness, who

blocked the sickle with his hand and suffered one injury on the palm of the left hand. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he was not present in

the incident of death of deceased-Shobhit Sahu, however, his statement regarding extra judicial confession made by the appellant about causing death

of the deceased-Shobhit Sahu with a sickle has remained unchallenged in cross-examination.

Hitendra Kumar (P.W.-4) is son of the Shobhit Sahu, who has given statement as an eye witness stating that he saw the incident from about the

distance of 100 meter, in which the appellant inflicted injury from his sickle on the deceased and fled from the spot. In cross-examination, this witness

was confronted with his previous statement Ex.-D/01. According to which, the statement regarding witnessing the incident of death of Shobhit Sahu

appears to be an improved statement. Hence, this witness cannot be relied upon.

Dushyant Sahu (P.W.-5) has been examined as an eye witness, who has stated that in his presence, the appellant took out a sickle from his

clothes and inflicted injury on the neck of the deceased Shobhit Sahu, which he has witnessed. In cross-examination, his statement has remained

unrebutted.

Permanand Sapaha (P.W.-7) has stated that he saw the appellant, who was shouting that he will kill Hemu Sapaha and Maharaj Dau. The

appellant had one sickle in his hand. It was in his presence, the appellant inflicted one injury on Hemu Sapaha, who is father of this witness. His

statement has also remained unrebutted in cross-examination.

Dr. P. Akhtar (P.W.-10) has conducted the Post-mortem on the body of the deceased- Shobhit Sahu. He stated about finding injuries as follows:-

one incised wound present on the upper right side of the neck which had cut the supraspinous ligament and extended till the centre of the neck

measuring 18X5 cm. having depth until the vertibral column cutting the major vessels and nervous.

There was another incised wound present on the lower side of the right side of the neck measuring 13X4 cm. having depth until the bones cutting

his mussels, nervous and major vessels.

Another incised wound was present on the parietal region measuring 7X2 cm. and having depth until the bones.

Another incised wound was present on the maxillary part of right side of the face measuring 6X2X2 cm. cutting the mussels.

One incised wound was present on the right frontal part of size 5X2 and bone deep.

One incised wound was present on chin measuring 5X3X2 cm. which was bone deep.

One incised wound present in the middle of sub-mandibular area of size 3X2X2 cm. of mussels deep.

One incised wound of size 2X1X1 cm. was present over the nose cutting the nasal bone and cartilage.

One incised wound of size 5X3 cm. was present in the middle of the right fore arm, which was bone deep.

10.One incised wound of size 6X3 cm. was present on the radial aspect left forearm, which was bone deep.

11.One incised wound of size 7X4 cm. and muscles deep and cutting the vessels was found on the palm of left hand extended till the middle of the

little finger.

12.One incised wound of size 4X3 cm. and bone deep was present on the left anterior iliac crest.

13.one incised wound of size 4X2 cm and bone deep was present on the left scapular region in the back of the deceased.

On the basis of these findings, Dr. P. Akhtar (P.W.-10) stated that cause of the death of the deceased was hemorrhage which had resulted from the

injury caused to him and the nature of both was homicidal (Ex.P-19). This statement regarding the presence of injuries on the body of the deceased

and also the nature of death has remained unrebutted in cross-examination.

Dr. I.K. Wadhwani (P.W.-12) examined Hemu Ram Sapaha and found one incised wound of 5X1X1 cm. on the palm of the left hand, one of

incised wound of size 3X1/2 cm. on the left index finger and that the injured was making complaint of pain on the left side of his chest regarding which

report of Ex.P/22. This statement has also remained unrebutted in cross-examination.

There is other evidence brought by the prosecution as circumstantial evidence.

Investigation Officer I.A. Kherani (P.W.-14) has stated about the investigation conducted by her. She has stated that she made seizure of blood

stained soil and plain soil, a black umbrella and slippers of the deceased from the site vide Ex.-P/7. Seizure witness Hitendra Kumar (P.W.-4) has

supported this statement. She has further stated that she has made seizure of the blood stained clothes worn by injured Hemu Ram Sapaha vide

seizure memo Ex.-P/8 This statement has also been supported by the unrebutted statement of Hitendra Kumar (P.W.-4). She has further stated that

the cloth of the deceased were preserved by the Doctor conducting post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Shobhit Sahu, which were seized by

seizure memo Ex.-P/16 which has been supported by the statement of Constable Nandu Ram Dhruv (P.W.-8). This witness has further stated that

the appellant was arrested. There were blood stains present on the clothes of the appellant, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/13. Witness

Horilal (P.W.-6) has not supported this statement of the Investigation Officer, however, the statement of Investigation Officer I.A. Kherani (P.W.-14)

is unrebutted on this point and there is no reason given or any suggestion given to her in cross-examination, according to which, it can be said that she

is making false statement. Hence, her statement regarding the seizure memo Ex.P/13 is also a believable statement rest of her statements regarding

several seizures made are also believable.

I.A. Kherani (P.W.-14) has further stated that she made seizure of a sickle from the appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/9. This investigative

procedure has been witnessed by Hitendra Kumar Sahu (P.W.-4) who has made statement in support. Hence, the seizures made by the I.A. Kherani

(P.W.-14) have been very clearly proved by the prosecution evidence. According to the evidence present, all these seized articles were sent for

F.S.L. examination. In F.S.L. report Ex.P-27, it is reported that the articles, clothes of deceased Shobhit Sahu and injured witness Hemu Ram, the

clothes of the appellant, the blood stained soil of the spot of incident and the sickle seized from the appellant had which presence of human blood. The

question was put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 in Cr.P.C. in this respect which was answered in simple denial. However, no

other explanation has been given, therefore, the presence of human blood in the articles of seizure as mentioned here-in-above is a strong

circumstance made out against the appellant connecting him with the incident that has occurred.

On making appreciation of all the evidence present, it is found that the prosecution has very clearly proved that the deceased- Shobhit Sahu was

done to death by infliction of various incised wounds of his body including the wounds present on the vital part of all his body that is neck. All the

wounds were inflicted by hard and sharp object regarding which, there is statement of Dr. P. Akhtar (P.W.-10), who examined the sickle seized by

the Investigation Officer from appellant and reported in Ex.P/19 that the injuries caused to the deceased and the injured could have been caused by

this. It was not challenged at all in his cross-examination. The seizure of the sickle from the appellant vide Ex.P/9 has been proved by the prosecution.

There is eye witness statement of Dushyant Sahu (P.W.-5), which is unrebutted and also the unrebutted statement of extra judicial confession by

Hemu Ram (P.W.-3). Rest of the witnesses namely Arun Kumar (P.W.-2), Hitendra Kumar (P.W.-4), they saw the dead body of the deceased

immediately after the incident and they were informed that the murderer of the deceased was this appellant is also relevant in support of the other

evidence of eye witness account and the extra judicial confession. The circumstantial evidence of the F.S.L. report has been already discussed here-

in-above. Apart from that, there is no story of defence from the appellant side as to who else may have caused death of the deceased- Shobhit Sahu

or who else may have attempted to cause death of Hemu Ram (P.W.-3). Therefore, on the basis of these discussions and looking to the quality of the

evidence present in the case, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for the

offences under Section 302 and 307 of I.P.C. and sentencing him accordingly as mentioned here-in-before. Therefore, we find no substance present

in this appeal, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed, which is dismissed.

21.With these observations, this Criminal Appeal stands disposed off.