Santosh vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.—Appellant Santosh stands convicted u/s 302 of the IPC with sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 16th March, 2002 passed by Session Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 117/2001.

Appellant Santosh has been found guilty of commission of murder of deceased Mahrinbai by causing multiple external injuries by means of a Tangia on 13-06-2001.

Appellant''s conviction is founded on the eyewitness account of Belabai (P.W. 5), daughter-in-law of deceased Mahrinbai, whose evidence was found corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. S.R. Mandavi (P.W. 9).

At the trial the capital charge of murder against accused Santosh was sought to be proved on the evidence of Hemlal (P.W. 1), Phutturam (P.W. 2), Kabirdas (P.W. 3), Jagdish Ram (P.W. 4), Belabai (P.W. 5), Mahan Das (P.W. 6), Mukteshwari Puri (P.W. 7), Gautam Lal Sahu (P.W. 8), Dr. S.R. Mandavi (P.W. 9) and T.S. Baghel (P.W. 10).

Accused Santosh abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not examine any witness in his defence.

Dr. S.R. Mandavi (P.W. 9) on postmortem examination found as many as five external injuries on the body of the deceased as detailed in the postmortem report (Exh. P-12). Of the five external injuries found on the body of the deceased, three were on her head region and two on the neck. In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased Mahrinbai was shock and hemorrhage, resulting from the injuries found on the head region and neck. He further opined that the external injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by means of a sharp edged weapon like ''Tangia'' seized from the accused.

Shri D.R. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae for the appellant vehemently argued that the Trial Court has erred in recording the appellant''s conviction on the evidence of solitary eye-witness Belabai (P.W. 5), who is an interested witness being daughter-in-law of deceased-Mahrinbai. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the evidence of solitary eye-witness Belabai (P.W. 5) stands belied by the medical evidence inasmuch as the eyewitness deposed about dealing of only two blows by the accused/appellant, whereas the autopsy surgeon found as many as five external injuries on the body of the deceased.

Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Government Advocate on the other hand supported the impugned judgment of conviction and contended that it is the quality of the evidence which matters and not the quantity of the evidence.

Belabai (P.W. 5) has categorically deposed that on the fateful day, accused Santosh was digging a drain through their ''badi'', which was objected to by her mother-in-law, deceased Mahrinbai. Accused Santosh, thereupon started abusing the deceased and dealt repeated blows by means of Tangia. It is further in her evidence, that when she tried to intervene, the accused threatened to assault her also. When she shouted for help, her husband Hemlal, and villagers Jagdish and Kabirdas came there, but by that time, her mother-in-law Mahrinbai had succumbed to her injuries. She was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited by the defence in her cross-examination which may render her evidence unworthy of credence.

On a close scrutiny of the evidence of Belabai (P.W. 5), we are satisfied that she is a reliable witness and her evidence can safely be acted upon. Her evidence stands amply corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. S.R. Mandavi (P.W. 9), who found multiple external injuries on the body of deceased Mahrinbai which could have been caused by means of a tangia. Merely because she is daughter-in-law of deceased Mahrinbai, her evidence cannot be discarded.

On a thorough scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record in general and that of Belabai (P.W. 5) and Dr. S.R. Mandavi (P.W. 9) in particular, we are satisfied that the Trial Court has rightly believed the evidence of Belabai (P.W. 5) in holding accused/appellant Santosh guilty of causing those injuries on deceased Mahrinbai by means of a tangia which resulted in her death.

The manner in which the appellant dealt repeated blows on head region and neck of deceased Mahrinbai; the number and nature of the injuries found on head region and neck of deceased Mahrinbai; the use of a heavy and sharp object Tangia for causing injuries by the accused/appellant on the deceased; and the vital parts of the body i.e., head region and neck, selected by the appellant for causing injuries on the deceased, who succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself do not leave any room for doubt that accused/appellant Santosh while causing those injuries on deceased Mahrinbai had intended to cause her death. The proved act of appellant Santosh of causing multiple injuries by means of a tangia on deceased Mahrinbai, therefore, in our opinion would not amount to anything short of ''murder'' and would be punishable u/s 302 of the IPC only.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The appellant''s conviction u/s 302 of the IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life recorded by the Trial Court is hereby maintained.