Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Navin Sinha and P. Sam Koshy, JJ.
Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 410 and 698 of 2000
Decided On : 05.06.2015
Indian Penal CODE - Section 148/ 450/ 302 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 161 - Rigorous imprisonment – Offence of Murder – Injury - deceased was assaulted inside his hut was lodged same night by cousin of the deceased, living fifteen steps across he hut of the deceased - FIR was lodged by stating that the deceased was the Deputy having a dispute with certain villagers - Witness was in his own hut when about 9:00 pm there was commotion outside the house of the deceased - Witness ran and saw persons including Appellants with etc. in their hands abusing deceased asking him to come out and that they would teach him a lesson for his political ambitions – Held, son of the deceased was undoubtedly a child witness. But the evidence of such witness cannot be rejected on that ground alone. It may only call for more caution. He was present in the room having his meal when the assault started - Witness also repeated the names of Appellants Mohan and in his statement under Section 161 and who were also named by in her statement under Section 161 that Appellant dragged the deceased out of the hut and said to the same effect both in their statement under Section161 and during deposition in Court talked of assault by the Appellants and with stone by reiterated by PW-4. The nature of the injuries found on the deceased with multiple fractures of skull bone, absence of brain material, laceration in ears, nose and mouth, fracture of mandible and teeth, tibia and fibula, contusion on the body, hands and legs, all go to suggest that the deceased was definitely assaulted by more than one person - fact that may have been watching from behind a gap in a closed door and that the end of may not have been visible is not such a fatal issue to hold that the witnesses were not speaking truth especially when the Appellants were all identified even before the assault began. We therefore find no reason to differ with the conclusion of the trial court on the issue for identification of the Appellants at paragraph 38 - Appellants in their statements under Section 313 did not offer any why they were being falsely implicated but on the contrary admitted that they had a very serious animosity against the deceased due to elections deceased was the Deputy evidence of is not considered relevant in view of his statement in cross-examination that he was sleeping and when he woke up, he found himself in the house of his uncle – Appeal allowed
Navin Sinha, J.
1. The Appellants stand convicted under Section 148 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment, under Section 450 IPC to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- as also under Section 302/149 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In the event of default in payment of fine, they were required to undergo six months further simple imprisonment for that offence as ordered by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, on 29.01.2000 in Sessions Trial No. 359 of 1997.
2. An Application was filed in the appeal under Section 7(A) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (56 of 2000) on behalf of Appellant-Birendra Kumar alias Tetku Verma, claiming that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. An enquiry by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar dated 12.3.2015 confirms that the said Appellant was below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence.
3. The deceased Parasram was assaulted inside his hut on 23.2.1997 at about 9:00 p.m. Dehatinalishi (Exhibit P-2) was lodged at 11:15 pm the same night by PW-2, Netram, cousin of the deceased, living fifteen steps across the hut of the deceased. FIR (Exhibit P-60) was lodged by PW-2 on 24.2.1997 at 12:05 am stating that the deceased was the Deputy Sarpanch having a dispute with certain villagers. The witness was in his own hut when about 9:00 pm there was commotion outside the house of the deceased. The witness ran and saw about 25 - 30 persons including the Appellants with lathi, danda, Khotla etc. in their hands abusing the deceased, asking him to come out and that they would teach him a lesson for his political ambitions. Appellants Bhuneshwar, Manohar, Hariram, Mohan and Bhuwan then entered the hut of the deceased and started to assault him. The deceased was dragged outside his hut after which Appellants Santosh, Bihari, Omkar, Kamta, Bhuwan and others exhorted to kill the deceased. All of them started to assault to the deceased indiscriminately. The witness sought to intervene when Appellants Omkar and Puneet assaulted him on the head causing injury. His wife then took him home. The witness from his own verandah saw the deceased being dragged from the "Parchi"" to the courtyard. Appellant Bhuneshwar picked up a stone weighing approximately 15 to 20 kilos and assaulted the deceased on the head causing the brain material to spill out.
4. The postmortem (Exhibit P-1) done by PW-1 Dr. A.D. Purena on 24.2.1997 at 10:30 a.m. found extensive external injuries all over the body and head. The head was extensively crushed, lacerated with compound multiple fractures of the skull bone. The brain material (cerebellum) was absent. Both ears and nose were lacerated. Extensive laceration was present on the mouth. The maxilla and mandible were fractured and premolar teeth broken. The skull bones were fractured in various sizes, multiple in number about 10-20. A lacerated wound was found 4 x 3 cm on the left leg. Compound fracture of bone was seen on both tibia and fibula. Left femur shift fracture was seen on the right leg. Compound fracture of lower end of tibia and fibula with lacerated wound 2x1 cm. Contusion 2 x 10 cm to 2 x 20 cm. Contusion was present on the chest, back of the body, hands and legs overlapping each other and multiple in number. There was a strong smell of alcohol present in the undigested food found in the stomach. Death was opined to have been caused by shock due to extensive injuries to the head (skull) and chest and homicidal in nature.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Surendra Singh submitted that PW-2, Netram, cousin of the deceased, PW-3, Urmila, wife of the deceased and PW-4 Narendra son of the deceased, are stated to be eye witnesses to the assault. PW-12, Dharmendra, another son of the deceased was not an eye witness as claimed. The allegations for assault are omnibus in nature. It cannot be said with certainty from the nature evidence available as to which one of the Appellants caused the f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
