Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), corresponding to Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”), calling in question the legality and validity of the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.34/2023. By the said judgment, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. The undisputed factual position emerging from the record is that the complainant Sudama Bai (PW-6) is the mother of the accused Vikas Kashyap. Kanhaiya Lal (PW-7) is the father of the accused and Ramnarayan (PW-11) is the grandfather of the accused.

(a) Prosecution story

4. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 30.10.2023, in village Kudkai, Gontiyanpara, complainant Sudama Bai (PW-6), wife of Kanhaiya Lal, aged about 45 years, lodged a Dehati Merg Intimation and Dehati Nalishi, which was registered as Merg Intimation No.0/2023. In the report she stated that she resides in village Kudkai, Gontiyanpara along with her family and performs household work. She further stated that her husband has two brothers. Her husband Kanhaiya Lal (PW-7) is the eldest. The middle brother-in-law Siyaram Kashyap is a teacher and resides with his family in Durg. The youngest brother-in-law Govind Kashyap is employed in the police department and resides with his family in Raipur.

5. The complainant stated that she lives with her family in a house situated towards the backyard, whereas her mother-in-law Amrika Bai (deceased) and father-in-law Ramnarayan (PW-11) reside separately in a house situated in front of their house.

6. According to the complainant, on the morning of the incident she and her mother-in-law had gone to take bath at a well situated in the backyard of the house. After bathing, her mother-in-law returned home earlier. When the complainant finished bathing and came back towards the house, she found that the door of the backyard was closed from inside. She called out to her son Vikas Kashyap (the accused) to open the door, but he did not respond.

7. Thereafter, she entered the house through the door of the store room adjoining the backyard. On entering the house she saw that the accused Vikas Kashyap was holding a Tangiya (axe) in his hand. The accused then told her that he had assaulted “Dai (grandmother)” with the tangiya.

8. Upon hearing this, the complainant rushed to the courtyard of the house where her mother-in-law was residing and found Amrika Bai lying in a pool of blood. Blood was oozing from her head and there was a deep injury on the head. Blood had spread on the floor of the courtyard and blood stains were also visible nearby.

9. Being frightened, the complainant came out of the house and raised alarm, upon which nearby residents namely Sant Kumar Dubey (PW-1), Rohit Prasad Yadav (PW-2) and Rajkumar Kashyap (PW-5) came there. Thereafter, the family members residing in the other house were informed and they also reached the spot. Subsequently, the police were informed. The complainant specifically stated that her son Vikas Kashyap had caused the death of her mother-in-law Amrika Bai by assaulting her with a tangiya.

10. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Dehati Merg Intimation Ex.P/12 and Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/13 were recorded at the spot.

(b) Investigation

11. During the course of merg enquiry, the I