Lukesh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant, under Section 374(2) of CrPC, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No.25/2015, by which the appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

Conviction

Sentence

Under Section 302 of IPC

Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 3 months.

Under Section 323 (3- Times) of IPC

R.I. for 3 months with fine of Rs.100/- on each count and in default of payment of fine amount, additional

R.I. for 3 months each.

Under Section 506 Part-II of IPC

R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 3 months.

All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 8.7.2015 at about 4:00 p.m. at Village Katalbod, in the field of one Ferha Sahu situated at Talabakhar, the appellant has strangulated Shanti Bai to death, caused simple injuries to Munni Bai (PW-3), Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7) and Neelu Dhruv (PW-8) and further threatened to kill Premin Bai (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3) and Heerabai (PW-5) and others; thereby he committed the aforesaid offences.

Case of the prosecution further is that though the appellant was a married person and having children, he had an illicit relationship with deceased Shanti Bai, wife of Narendra Sahu, for which a social meeting was held in the village in which the appellant was fined for Rs.24000/- or Rs.25000/- and Shanti Bai was also fined for Rs.6000/-, on account of which the appellant was holding a grudge against Shanti Bai. On the date of offence i.e., on 8.7.2015, at about 4:00 p.m. when Shanti Bai along with Premin Bai (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3), Triveni Bai (PW-4), Heera Bai (PW-5), Ku. Ulphi Sahu (PW-6) and Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7) was performing agriculture work in the field of Reman Diwan (PW-1), the appellant reached there and dragged Shanti Bai to the field of Ferha Sahu, pushed her down to the field which was filled with water and then strangulated her to death by sitting on her chest, which was witnessed by PW-2 to PW-7. The appellant is also said to have threatened to kill Premin Bai (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3) and Heera Bai (PW-5) and others and also caused injuries to Munni Bai (PW-3), Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7) and Neelu (PW-8).

The matter was reported to the police by Reman Diwan (PW-1), on which Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-1) was recorded and FIR (Exhibit-23) was registered. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Exhibit P-3 and the dead-body of deceased Shanti Bai was subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. J.P. Diwan (PW-14) who proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-14) in which the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to throttling and the nature of death was homicidal. Certain articles were also seized and sent for chemical analysis to the FSL, the report of which is Exhibit P-28. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and the appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Exhibit P-10).

After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 (3-Times) and 506 Part-II of IPC before the concerned jurisdictional Court from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt, pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

During trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents. In defence, though no witness has been examined, but one document has been exhibited as D-1. Statement of the accused-appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

After conclusion of trial, the trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 23.11.2015, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 (3-Times) and 506 Part-II of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above in para-1 of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that on account of the fact that the field which the appellant’s father had taken on lease was filled with water which was coming from the field of Ferha Sahu, a brief altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased Shanti Bai and without premeditation the incident occurred and, as such, the case of the appellant at best would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the appellant may be sentenced for the period already undergone, as he is in jail since 09.07.2015 i.e. for more than 8 years. Even otherwise, the prosecution has failed to bring home the said offences beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed by acquitting the appellant giving him the benefit of doubt.

On the other hand, Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubts and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He would further submit that it is a case where the appellant has offered false explanation which is unacceptable in view of his statement. Furthermore, it is an admitted position based on the evidence available on record that the appellant being a married person, had illicit relationship with the deceased Shanti Bai and for which he was even fined in the social meeting held in the village, as is evident from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly from the statements of Premin Bai (PW-2) and Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7). On account of the said incident, the appellant developed grudges against Shanti Bai and ultimately he killed her in the field of Ferha Sahu, which was witnessed by Premin Bai (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3), Triveni Bai (PW-4), Heera Bai (PW-5), Ku. Ulphi Sahu (PW-6) and Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7) who all are eye-witnesses and have categorically supported the case of the prosecution. As such, it is a case of cold blooded murder and, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and have also gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

The first question for consideration as to whether the death of the deceased Shanti Bai was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of Dr. J.P. Diwan (PW-14) who has proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-14) opining the cause of death to be asphyxia due to throttling and the nature of death to be homicidal, which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

Now, as regards the question whether the appellant is the author of crime and has caused murder of Shanti Bai, has also been answered by the trial Court in affirmative. The trial Court has found proved the motive of the offence and has also found the prosecution witnesses, particularly Premin Bai (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3), Triveni Bai (PW-4), Heera Bai (PW-5), Ku. Ulphi Sahu (PW-6) and Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7) to be the eye-witnesses of the incident and has also relied upon their evidence including that of Neelu (PW-8).

The motive of the offence which the prosecution has proved is that the appellant had illicit relationship with the deceased Shanti Bai and in that regard, a social meeting was also held in the village about six months prior to the date of offence. The said fact is also apparent from the evidence of Premin Bai (PW-2) in which the suggestion has been made on behalf of the defence that in the said social meeting, the appellant and the deceased were present and the appellant was fined for Rs.24000/- or Rs.25000/- and Shanti Bai was fined for Rs.6000/- and which has also been proved by Kripal Ram (PW-9) and Tejan Lal (PW-10). Though it is a case of direct evidence and motive may not have too much of relevance, yet the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the motive of the offence has been found to be proved.

Now, as regards the fact that the trial Court has accepted Premin Bai (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3), Triveni Bai (PW-4), Heera Bai (PW-5), Ku. Ulphi Sahu (PW-6) and Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7) as eye-witnesses to the incident, from the statement of Premin Bai (PW-2) it is clearly reflected that on the date of offence, she along with the deceased Shanti Bai and other witnesses i.e. Munni Bai (PW-3), Triveni Bai (PW-4), Heera Bai (PW-5), Ku. Ulphi Sahu (PW-6) and Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7) were engaged in agriculture operation in the field of Reman Diwan (PW-1) and all of a sudden the appellant came there and pushed Shanti Bai saying that because of her, his relationship with his wife, mother and children have got strained and therefore he would kill her. The appellant then dragged Shanti Bai to the field of Ferha Sahu and then he pushed her down to the field which was filled with about one and half feet of water and strangulated her to death by sitting on her chest and thereafter he absconded. Premin Bai (PW-2) has been subjected to cross-examination, but the defence has not been able to extract much from her cross-examination to doubt her statement.

Similar is the statement of Munni Bai (PW-3). She has also supported the case of the prosecution being an eye-witness and has stated that when the appellant was strangulating the deceased Shanti Bai, they called Neelu (PW-8) but the appellant also assaulted him and pushed him away and thereafter he brutally killed Shanti Bai. She has also clearly admitted the said fact on the suggestion made to her on behalf of the defence. Similar statements have also been made by Triveni Bai (PW-4), Heera Bai (PW-5), Ku. Ulphi Sahu (PW-6) and Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7) and they have also fully supported the case of the prosecution.

As such, the trial Court has rightly held that Premin Bai (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3), Triveni Bai (PW-4), Heera Bai (PW-5), Ku. Ulphi Sahu (PW-6) and Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7) are the eye-witnesses and who have clearly seen the incident where the appellant has strangulated the deceased Shanti Bai to death when she was working in the field along with them. Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that it is the appellant who has in fact strangulated the deceased Shanti Bai to death.

Furthermore, so far as Neelu (PW-8) is concerned, he has also supported the versions of Premin Bai (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3), Triveni Bai (PW-4), Heera Bai (PW-5), Ku. Ulphi Sahu (PW-6) and Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7) that on hearing of their shout, he came to the spot and tried to intervene but the appellant had assaulted him on his back and the appellant was threatening the persons who were trying to intervene.

Thus, from the statements of the eye-witnesses Premin Bai (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3), Triveni Bai (PW-4), Heera Bai (PW-5), Ku. Ulphi Sahu (PW-6) and Heera Bai Diwan (PW-7), it is quite established that the appellant had the motive to kill the deceased Shanti Bai as he was earlier having illicit relationship with her and for which he was also fined in the social meeting which was held in the village. Furthermore, the act of killing of the deceased Shanti Bai by the hands of the appellant has been witnessed by PW-2 to PW-7 and which stands corroborated by the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-14) proved by Dr. J.P. Diwan (PW-14) opining the cause of death to be asphyxia due to strangulation.

As such, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant is the author of crime of committing murder of deceased Shanti Bai is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding also.

Similarly, from the evidence which have come on record, the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 323 (3-Times) and 506 Part-II of IPC also stands affirmed.

Resultantly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.