IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ., RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Kuldeep Sahu son of Deenmani Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1492 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2024
Decided on : 08-04-2024
HOMICIDAL DEATH - CRIMINAL APPEALS - IPC 302/34, 450, 201 - The court affirmed the finding that the death was homicidal based on medical evidence. The conviction was based on the testimony of a child witness, which was found reliable and trustworthy. The court upheld the conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Ramkishore Domar, with the accused being convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 and 450 of the IPC. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of a child witness and the recovery of incriminating evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the death to be homicidal based on medical evidence and upheld the conviction of the appellants, citing the reliable and trustworthy testimony of the child witness and the recovery of incriminating evidence.
Issues: The key issue was the reliability of the child witness's testimony and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 118 of the Evidence Act and established that the child witness's testimony was reliable and trustworthy. The court also emphasized the recovery of incriminating evidence as a basis for the conviction.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, dismissing the appeals and directing the appellants to serve out their sentences.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Since the aforesaid two criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 4.7.2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Case No.03/2019, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellant-Kuldeep Sahu has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1492/2023 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 4.7.2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Case No.03/2019, by which he has been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 and 450 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year and RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.
3. Appellant-Sakshi @ Chandni Domar has preferred Criminal Appeal No.165/2024 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 4.7.2023 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa in Sessions Case No.03/2019, by which she has been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year two months and RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year two months.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused/appellant Sakshi @ Chandni Domar lodged the FIR in Baradwar Police Station to the effect that she is was married to Ramkishore Domar in Baradwar and their 4 years old daughter is Samiksha Domar. Her husband Ramkishore Domar was posted as Head Cashier in State Bank of India, Baradwar for last seven years. Her maternal home is near Ward No.10 Kanya Shala in Baradwar and after marriage she lives with her husband on rent in the house of Dinesh Agrawal near Sub-Tahsil office, Baradwar. On 22.09.2018 at about 8 P.M. due to Genesh immersion in her maternal locality, she and her daughter Samiksha had gone to the house of her mother Kiran Teji and her husband was in a rented house, she called her husband on his mobile at about 9.30 P.M., there was no response after several times. When she went to her rented house with her daughter around 11 P.M., the door was locked. The door was bolted from outside. After opening the door, she went inside the house and found that her husband Ramkishore Domar was lying dead on sofa in the hall. Some unknown person murdered her husband by slitting his throat with a sharp object, due to which a lot of blood came tout due to injury on the front of his throat. The palm of the left hand is also injured. Information of the incident was given to her mother Kiran Teji and her sister Chanda Valmiki through mobile phone and she also told the incident to her brother Chandan Teji. On the basis of report of accused Sakshi @ Chandni, Merg No.49/18 and FIR No.248/2018 for offence under Sections 450 and 302 of the IPC was registered in Baradwar Police Station vide Ex.P-22.
5. During investigation, it was found that accused Kuldeep Sahu was having friendship with deceased Ramkishore Domar for last 5-6 years. Due to friendship, Kuldeep Sahu used to visit Ramkishore’s house and used to talk to Ramkishore’s wife accused Sakshi @ Chandni Domar. During that time, accused Kuldeep Sahu had established an illicit relationship with Sakshi @ Chandni. Accused Kuldeep Sahu had borrowed money from deceased Ramkishore Domar. When Ramkishore came to know about Kuldeep Sahu’s illicit relationship with his wife, Ramkishore demanded money from Kuldeep Sahu and refused to come to his house. Since that time, both Kuldeep and Sakshi @ Chandni Domar were troubled by Ramkishore. Accused Sakshi @ Chandni Domar called the accused Kuldeep Sahu to her house and conspired
Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 5 SCC 341]
Golla Yelugu Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate and others V. State of Maharashtra
State of Karnataka v. Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji & others
The reliability and trustworthiness of a child witness's testimony, as well as the sufficiency of evidence, are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
The competency and reliability of child witnesses, as well as the careful evaluation of their testimony, are crucial in cases where their evidence forms a significant part of the prosecution's case.
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act lies with the accused to provide a convincing explanation for circumstances within their knowledge, and the court may draw an adverse inferen....
Murder - Testimony of sole child witness - There is no age limit fixed for a person to be a competent witness. A child of tender age can also be a competent witness.
The court established that the reliability of child witnesses must be carefully evaluated, and a conviction cannot be sustained on their testimony alone without corroborative evidence, especially whe....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : S. S. Gautam, Deependra Singh Raghuvanshi For the Respondent : R. K. Awasthi
The presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty, and an acquittal should not be disturbed without compelling reasons.
The prosecution must establish fundamental facts to raise presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, and evidence of cruelty and harassment must be satisfactory to prove guilt beyond reason....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.