Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 13179
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
ASHWANI @ GOLU DHURI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRA/342/2022
The testimony of an injured eyewitness is given greater evidentiary weight, and the court must scrutinize related witnesses' testimonies carefully, affirming their credibility when supported by corroborative evidence.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 450 - Conviction for murder and attempted murder - The appellant was convicted for the murder of two individuals and attempted murder of another, with sentences running concurrently - The prosecution established the case through the testimony of an injured eyewitness and corroborative evidence. (Paras 1, 7, 22)
(B) Eyewitness Testimony - The testimony of an injured eyewitness carries greater evidentiary value and should not be discarded lightly unless compelling reasons exist - The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of testimonies from related witnesses, but affirmed their credibility in this case. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his in-laws and attempting to murder his wife during a domestic dispute. The incident occurred on 08.10.2018, where the appellant used sharp weapons to inflict fatal injuries. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the injured wife and forensic evidence. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's findings that the deaths were homicidal, based on medical evidence and the eyewitness account, affirming the conviction and sentences imposed. (Paras 11, 22)
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the deaths (homicidal) and the credibility of the eyewitness testimony. (Paras 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, relying on the injured eyewitness's testimony and corroborative evidence, affirming the trial court's conviction. (Paras 22, 23)
Result: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. this criminal appeal under section (Para 1) |
| 2. case of the prosecution, in brief (Para 2) |
| 3. on the registration of separate-separate (Para 3) |
| 4. during investigation, the investigating officer (Para 4) |
| 5. after completion of investigation (Para 5) |
| 6. in order to bring home the offence (Para 6) |
| 7. the trial court upon appreciation (Para 7 , 10) |
| 8. mr. nishikant sinha, learned counsel (Para 8) |
| 9. on the other hand, mr. sanghrash (Para 9) |
| 10. the first question for consideration (Para 11) |
| 11. the next question is that (Para 12 , 13) |
| 12. the proposition which has been laid (Para 14) |
| 13. similar view has been reiterated (Para 15 , 16) |
| 14. dr.ashish kacchyap (pw-7) has been (Para 17) |
| 15. investigating officer sharad kumar (Para 18) |
| 16. shiv kumar dhuri (pw-10) has stated (Para 19) |
| 17. ravishankar dhuri (pw-11) (stepbrother (Para 20 , 21) |
| 18. on the basis of testimony of injured (Para 22) |
| 19. in the result, this court comes (Para 23) |
| 20. it is stated at the bar (Para 24 , 25) |
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , CJ
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Case No.29/2019, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Sections 307 , 450 , 302 and 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 100 days, RI for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 100 days, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 200 days and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 200 days. All the sentences were directly to run concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 08.10.2018 at around 11 P.M. in village Khapri, Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur the accused under the jurisdiction of deceased Siyaram Dhuri and Shakun Bai Dhuri entered the house with an intention to kill Siyaram Dhuri and Shakun Bai Dhuri and caused criminal house trespass. The accused killed Siyaram Dhuri and Shakun Bai Dhuri by hitting with a spade and gandasa as well as injured Uma Dhuri by hitting an iron pot and a spade inflicting such serious injuries for causing death. Complainant Shiv Kumar’s sister was married with accused Ashwani @ Golu Dhuri. After the marriage, the accused started harassing the complainant’s sister. Uma Dhuri leaves the house of the accused and started living with her parent along with her son in village Khapri. The appellant was angry with the parents of the complainant on this issue. During social divorce meeting, the appellant quarreled and assaulted Uma Dhuri and threatened to convince her to come to him or else he would kill her. As Uma Dhuri did not go to the accused, the accused out of enmity, was waiting to kill her and on the date of incident i.e. 08.10.2018 at about 1 P.M. he reached village Khapri, entered the house of Siyaram Dhuri and assaulted the complainant’s parents Shakun Bai and Siyaram Dhuri with sharp weapons “gandasa and spade” and killed them. The appellant assaulted the complainant’s sister Uma Dhuri with sharp weapon “gandasa and spade” and inflicted serious injuries on her, due to which Uma Dhuri became unconscious. The complainant was informed about the incident by his material uncle Sunder over phone and when he reached village Khapri, the complainant’s parents had already died and Uma Dhuri had been taken to the hospital.
3. On the registration of separate-separate merg intimation by complainant Shiv Kumar Dhuri regarding death of his parents, on 09.10.2018 Sub-Inspector Rakesh Sahu recorded merg intimation No.73/2018 & 74/2018 and registered the First Information Report under Sections 302 , 307 and 450 of the IPC against the appellant in Crime No.395/2018.
4. D
