10 February 2016 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 2010 Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Hon'ble Shri Justice Inder Singh Uboweja Appellant Bhola Ram Sahu Respondent State of Chhattisgarh
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the trial Court after holding guilty for causing homicidal death amounting to murder of his Bahu (younger brother’s wife) Smt. Chameli Sahu, W/o Neelkanth Sahu, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/-, in default of payment of a fine amount to further undergo R.I. for two years.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 26.04.2010 at about 6.45 p.m., the unfortunate deceased – Chameli Sahu was doing construction work of her house at village Sambalpur and her younger sister complainant – Savitri Bai (PW-1) was also helping her. When the mason finished his work and left the construction site, both deceased and complainant were watering the soil, at that juncture accused/appellant came from behind and assaulted 3-4 blows over the head of deceased – Chameli Sahu by wooden plank and fled away from the spot, as a result of which blood started oozing from the head of the deceased and she fell down into the mud. Savitri Sahu (PW) raised alarm and when villagers came there, she informed them about the incident. She also informed about the incident to the husband of the deceased namely Neelkanth Sahu (PW-3) on his mobile. Thereafter, Chameli Sahu was taken to Masihi Hospital, Dhamtari, where she succumbed to injuries. The Incident was reported by Savitri Sahu (PW-1) at the police station, Arjuni, where FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered as Crime No. 127/2010 against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Merge was registered to vide Ex.P-1. Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-3, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared to vide Ex.P-4. Bloodstained and plain soils were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-5. Spot map was prepared to vide Ex.P-6. The dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to District Hospital, Dhamtari, where Dr. (Smt) M. Wantchadi and Dr. C.L. Sahu Cr.A.845 of 2010 (PW-5) conducted an autopsy on the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P-12 and found following injuries and symptoms :
(i) Lacerated wound at the left parietal area of head 1.5″ x 1.5″ with bony deep;
(ii) Rigor-mortis all over limbs and neck;
(iii) Fracture over left parietal & frontal bone starts from mid frontal region oblique transverse with laterally bent in size of 7″ to the left parietal bone.
(iv) Subdural and interphalangeal hemorrhage overhead; Mode of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature.
During the course of the investigation, the appellant was taken into custody, he made a disclosure statement of a wooden plank vide Ex.P-7, same was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-8. Sealed clothes and internal organs of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-9.
Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/-, in default of payment of a fine amount to further undergo R.I. for two years. and thereby committed illegality.
In the present case, the homicidal death of the deceased as a result of fatal injuries found over the dead body of the deceased Chameli Sahu has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. Even otherwise, from the evidence of Savitri Bai (PW-1), Prabhuram (PW-2), Neelkanth Sahu (PW-3), Rupesh Netam (PW-4), FIR (Ex.P-2), Merg (Ex.P-1), Dr. C.L. Sahu (PW-5) and autopsy report (Ex.P-12) it is established that death of deceased Chameli Sahu was homicidal in nature.
After appreciating the evidence available on record, the Sessions Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.
On close scrutiny of the entire evidence, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court.
Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Edited by: Purnima Ojha