Back
2022 Supreme(Chh) 3
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAJENDRA CHANDRA SINGH SAMANT, ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, JJ.
Raidhar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2016
Decided On : 03-01-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : A.P. Sharma, Manish Thakur.
For the Respondent: Devesh Chandra Verma.
The judgment establishes the legal principle that guilt can be established based on witness testimonies, circumstantial evidence, and forensic findings, even in cases involving witchcraft-related offenses.
Headnote:
Conviction - Murder - Indian Penal Code, Section 302; Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005, Sections 4 and 5
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Sumitrabai Netam, based on witness testimonies and evidence of the assault with a stone. The prosecution presented 18 witnesses, and the appellant denied the guilt during examination.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on the evidence provided by the witnesses and the post mortem examination report, which indicated homicidal injuries. The court found the appellant guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and offenses under Sections 4 and 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's guilt in the murder of Sumitrabai Netam and the alleged witchcraft-related offenses under the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the post mortem examination report, and the forensic evidence to establish the appellant's guilt. The intention to commit murder was inferred from the nature of the assault and the target area of the attack.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the appellant's conviction and dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2015, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code | Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month |
| Under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 | Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month |
| Under Section 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 | Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 1 month |
2. Name of the deceased, in this case, is Sumitrabai Netam. According to the case of prosecution, on 3.8.2014 at about 8:30 a.m. the Appellant went to the house of Sumitrabai Netam and dragged her out of the house saying that she used to commit witchcraft. After dragging her to near his house, he picked up a big stone weighing about 12 kgs. and assaulted on her head with that stone many times. As a result thereof, she died on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7). Both are grand daughters of the deceased as also by Phoolbai (PW-15), daughter-in-law of the deceased. The matter was reported by Maheshram Netam (PW-2), son of the deceased. On the basis of the report, morgue intimation (Ex.P6) and First Information Report (Ex.P11) were recorded. Inquest proceeding (Ex.P8) was conducted. Post mortem examination over the dead body of Sumitrabai was conducted by Dr. S.P. Prajapati (PW-1). Post mortem report is Ex.P1. During the course of investigation, spot-map (Ex.P12) was prepared. Disclosure statement (Ex.P14) of the Appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded. On the basis thereof, the weapon of offence, i.e. 1 stone weighing about 12 kgs. was seized from the Appellant vide Ex.P15. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. Charges were framed against him by the Trial Court.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness was examined in his defence.
4. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that without there being any sufficient and clinching evidence on record, the Appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court. One of the eye-witnesses, namely, Phoolbai (PW-15) admitted the fact that at the time of alleged incident, she was not present on the spot. Eye-witnesses Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7) are close relatives of the deceased and, therefore, they are interested witnesses. There are material contradictions and omissions also in their statements. Therefore, their statements are not reliable. Hence, the conviction of the Appellant is not in accordance with the evidence available on record.
6. Opposing the above contentions, Learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that from the statement of Dr. S.P. Prajapati (PW-1), who conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, it is well established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Eye-witnesses Ku. Maya Netam (PW-6) and Parmeshwari Netam (PW-7) have supported the entire case of the prosecution. Though they are close relatives o
