SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Chh) 142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Rajani Dubey, JJ.
Karan Prasad S/o Shri Mangatu Satnami - Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station, Lalpur - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.533 of 2014
Decided On : 04-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms Savita Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sunil Otwani, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Devesh Chand Verma, Govt. Advocate

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 and 374(2) - Offence of Murder – Charged- Appeal against conviction - Case of prosecution, in brief, is that appellant/accused on 13.1.2013 at 4 p.m. committed murder of his wife by strangulation and caused disappearance of evidence by falsely informing police that she died by electrification - It is further case of prosecution that appellant along with his two daughters and had visited village Lalpur on to Ghasidas mela organized therein and from where the parents of the deceased (PW-1) and his wife (PW-5) also met them and thereafter they had gone to the house (father of the deceased) at village, wherein the appellant herein demanded money from his wife, which she refused to give and appellant also assaulted to her and thereafter appellant came back to village Chhata along with his daughters - Thereafter on understanding given by and from village,(deceased) came back to stay with appellant but on (PW-1) (father of the deceased) received information that his daughter became unwell and thereafter also received information that has died, then he came to village Chhata along with other 4-5 persons and on being asked, appellant informed to him that Baijantibala is said to have died by electrification - (PW-1) reported matter to Police Station - Whether trial Court was justified in holding that death of the deceased Baijantibala was homicidal in nature - Held, In instant case, admittedly, the trial Court has held theory of last seen together as incriminating piece of evidence against the appellant herein, but surprisingly under Section 313 CrPC though as many 33 questions had been put to the accused, but no such question qua alleged incriminating circumstance of his last seen together with the deceased has been put to accused asking him to furnish explanation with that regard, yet on the basis of his last seen together with the deceased, guilt of the appellant has been recorded by which he has sufficiently suffered prejudice in not affording an opportunity to explain the circumstances as he has specifically taken the plea of alibi by examining defence witnesses which have been discussed hereinabove - As a upshot of aforesaid discussion, Court are of considered opinion that though the prosecution has succeeded in proving the death of deceased to be homicidal in nature, but further failed to establish plea of last seen together as incriminating piece of evidence and also failed to prove that it is only and only appellant who has committed murder of the deceased by strangulation criminal appeal is allowed to extent indicated hereinabove.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dated 9.4.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, in Sessions Trial No.13/2013, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant/accused on 13.1.2013 at 4 p.m. committed murder of his wife Baijantibala by strangulation and caused disappearance of the evidence by falsely informing the police that she died by electrification. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant along with his two daughters Rameshwari and Chandani had visited village Lalpur on 18.12.2013 to Ghasidas mela organized therein and from where the parents of the deceased namely Rohit Kumar (PW-1) and his wife Smt. Shail Bai (PW-5) also met them and thereafter they had gone to the house of Rohit Kumar (father of the deceased) at village Baigakapa, wherein the appellant herein demanded money from his wife, which she refused to give and the appellant also assaulted to her and thereafter the appellant came back to village Chhata along with his daughters on 19.12.2012. Thereafter on the understanding given by Golu and Govind from village Chhata, Baijantibala (deceased) came back to stay with the appellant on 1.1.2013, but on 13.1.2013, Rohit Kumar (PW-1) (father of the deceased) received information that his daughter became unwell and thereafter also received information that Baijantibala has died, then he came to village Chhata along with other 4-5 persons and on being asked, the appellant informed to him that Baijantibala is said to have died by electrification. Rohit Kumar (PW-1) reported the matter to Police Station Lalpur vide merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and thereafter First Information Report was registered vide Ex.P-10. Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate First Class was informed about the incident. Thereafter the Station House Officer, Police Station Lalpur reached to the spot and served notices to the witnesses. Naksha panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P3. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer vide Ex.P5. Dead body of deceased Baijantibala was sent for postmortem to Government Hospital, Mungeli vide Ex. P-11, where postmortem was conducted by Dr.Deepak Dhritlahre (PW-9) vide Ex.P-14 in which he opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. Thereafter the accused was arrested, he was given memorandum statement on 12.2.2013 (Ex.P-7), but no recovery pursuant to memorandum statement was made. However, sari was recovered from possession of the appellant on 14.1.2013 vide Ex.P-4. The appellant was chargesheeted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, who was committed the case to the Court of Session, Mungeli, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli received the case on transfer for trial. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence.

3. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents Exs.P-1 to P-14. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded in which he denied guilt. However, the accused took a plea of alibi and examined 4 witnesses to prove his defence and brought out statement of Shail Bai in his favour as Ex.D-1.

4. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 9.4.2014, convicted the appellant herein holding that death of deceased Baijantibala was homicidal in nature and further theory of last seen together has been established and it is

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top