IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ., RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Dinesh Taram S/o Santram Taram – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 95 of 2024
Decided on : 09-04-2024
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 of IPC - Section 106 of the Evidence Act - Circumstantial evidence - Extra-judicial confession - Postmortem report - FSL report
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for assaulting and killing his wife with a pickaxe. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to multiple witnesses. The trial court found the death to be homicidal in nature and held the appellant as the author of the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court affirmed the homicidal nature of the death based on the postmortem report and concluded that the appellant failed to provide a convincing explanation for the circumstances, invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court also found the extra-judicial confession admissible and relied on it as incriminating evidence against the appellant.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the death, the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the appellant due to his special knowledge of the circumstances. It also upheld the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession as a voluntary and true statement made in a fit state of mind.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to serve the sentence as per the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH SINHA, C.J.
1. Appellant- Dinesh Taram has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 2019, by which he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 12.04.2019 at about 7.30 am the appellant assaulted his wife Sadhna Bhaskar with the help of pickaxe (Kudal) due to which she died. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused and deceased Sadhna Bhaskar has performed love marriage about 8 years ago from the date of incident and the accused always had suspicion about the character of his wife Sadhana Bhaskar which the deceased had informed to her brother Dushyant Bhaskar. On 12.04.2019, the accused/appellant called Dushyant Bhaskar on his mobile phone that his wife Sadhana Bhaskar was having love affair with some other person and for the said reason he has killed his wife using pickaxe. Upon receiving the information, Dushyant Bhaskar along with his friend Yuvraj Singh went to the place of incident at Jhapara where he saw that Sadhna was lying dead in the courtyard being the accused’s house. Dushyant Bhaskar gave information about the above incident at Police Station Sukma on which Merg under Section 174 CrPC has been registered vide Ex.P-1. After registering the case and giving notice to the witnesses to prepare the Naksha Panchayatnama vide Ex.P-13, inquest over the dead body of the deceased Sadhana was prepared vide Ex.P-15. On the basis of oral report of Dushyant, First Information under Section 302 IPC was registered against the accused vide Ex.P-2. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to District Hospital, Sukma vide Ex.P-17, wherein Dr.Praveen Teli (PW-10) conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P-5 and found following injuries:
“Mouth closed, eyes closed, pupils dilated and fixed, blood coming from both nostrils, blood stain seen in both ear canals. No external contusion over body or skin. On scalp three lacerated wounds were found :
(1) 1x6x2 cm3 laceration over left scalp 10 cm from the mid line 12 cm above the left ear.
(2) 3x0.5x1.3 cm3 laceration 16 cm from the left ear and 12 cm lower to the occipital
(3) 1x5x1cm3 laceration over left scalp 10 cm behind the left ear with clear margin seen in all lacerations.
The doctor opined that cause of death is cardio respiratory arrest due to head injury caused by hit with hard and sharp object and it is homicidal in nature.
3. During the investigation, a map of the incident site was prepared vide Ex.P-4. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex.P-26. Pieces of bloodstained plaster concrete and plain plaster concrete were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-14. On the basis of memorandum statement of the accused (Ex.P-8), on his inspiration, the pickaxe (kudal) used in the incident was seized vide Ex.P-9 and the mobile phone of Vivo company with 02 SIM was seized from his possession vide Ex.P-11. A memo was sent to Superintendent of Police for providing of CDR of Mobile No.8770771581. The nightie worn by the deceased was seized vide Ex.P-18. Query report (Ex.P- 21) was obtained from the doctor regarding presence of human blood in the seized pickaxe (kudal). The seized pieces of plaster concrete, pickaxe and the deceased’s nightie were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur through the Superintendent of Police for testing vide Ex.P-22, wherefrom FSL report was obtained vide Ex.P25, as per the said report bloodstains were found in the pieces of bloodstained plaster concrete, seized pick axe (kudal) and nightie of the deceased. The accused was arrested and arrest panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P.10.
4. After due investigation and other proceedings in t
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab
Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar
Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab
State of W.B. v. Mir Mohd. Omar
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram
State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram
Suresh and another v. State of Haryana
Sunder alias Sundararajan v. State by Inspector of Police
The judgment establishes the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused in cases where they have special knowledge of the facts. It also affirms the ad....
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a duty on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the circumstances of the crime, especially in cases of circumstantial evide....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the principles governing the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The distinction between culpable homicide and murder lies in the nature and intent of the assault; insufficient evidence can lead to conviction modification.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence needs a complete chain indicating the accused's guilt; extra-judicial confessions require corroboration and cannot so....
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.