S. Badri Suri v. State of Madhya Pradesh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASFUR carimlnal Appeal N0. 1386/2000 Sukfcuram Vs. State of Madliyapradestt {NQW Ch!iattis^!r!i) Coram: Hoa'ble Sttrl FaKha-uddin attd Hon'fele SBrl Dlilrendra MisIu'a.JJ | Q> neseat: Dr. N.K. Shulda,yr.Aayoeate,witIiSIu-iDittp Dubey, counsel for fhe aoTieUaat. fc±^Jt" ShriM.P.S. BIiatia, panei Lawyer, forthe State. ,JUJ3iGnLENjT , Heard leamed coiuisel fbr the parties. | ;

2. This appeal has been preferred by fhe appeuant agairi^t judgment passed by fhe Additional Sessions Judge, Kaitker ia Ses'sions I'tl i'il ;ls Trial N0.272/97 on 7/4/2000, wherebyhehasbeen convieted jiar fhfi ! offence uiider Section 302 of fhe Indiaa Penal Code for coTnmittiitig fhe : '•• -i :1 :i ' niurder of Cfaherkurara aad sentenced to uudergo imprisoiunent tbr life. • 1 • • .•

3. Brietiy stated the prosecution stoiy is .1,1. „„„ that on 23/3'/il9y7 '! . deceased Chherku and accused Sukkuram were takuig liquor at fhe 1 • house of Batiram at YiIlage-Sitapur, district Kanker. The dea:e|ased I • deuiaaded inore Uquor, upon wliich fhe ^ccused got annoyectjand I itiHicted tangia blows. The deceased sustained:iajuries oa the foifehead i ana other parts offhebody.KoopeBai(P.W.2)witnessed fhe incMent aud reported to her husbaud Bati, who iu turn informed DIloluram. • It was on 26/3/1997 that jflrst The Panchayat had taken place. : 1 ::; I I's iofdrmation report was lodged by DUoluram vide Ex.P/5 in ftie pfaiUce • ' 1 \ •} station, Narayaapur, which is 4&kin. away&oni ViUage-Sitapur.i |The, ' j :£ first infonnation report was recoidea fay tte Statk)n House OffKiefliIi.S. I'li : :] ;!. l i®63iari.(F'.W.4). He came to thc spot aod prepared the m®cgJMailfia^MgEBi|j||lj||| §11 •Sffil ;.[;':^^::.'l':¥|i.^'.;}^!': i.' The dead bodv was seiLt for postmortem whieh. was iEioaHaKsNlKMiHB it3!iBiiaiRaai jbv Dr. Shash&a]a(P.W.l). Ex.P/1 is the postuiorteiarepCirtji&flltSgl ^l.eceased aud the cause of death showa to be ttie injuries to vitai|arg^ifi.ji TThestatemfiQt of eye witaess was recorded aad after usualinvesit|^|^||j ^'.1. the chaUan was filcd. !

4. The appellant was chargedwiththe offence. He abiured tl^giiil I'ai' r'l^ i;^t:i)H?;iU :!lB9 11M8 tt!8S Miiii :ISMI§SIBiia aad cortteaded fhat he has been ialsdy implicated. Smce fhe agc?usefl|| was not able ta engage the counsel, the coiinsel was appoHrtedj^Hthi; Htateexpenses. ^ ,. ~'..^ : , .. . ' : l;l!^^i'l!U IBSB IH -l^i; 5t Duriag tnal, the prosecufioB exauuaed six \vitaesses, naiael^, E)rt| Shasnikalai(P.W.il),Koope(P.W.2},Mot]i(P.W.3), D.S. pehari (P|W.tt),i| :1^1CT vKmi SuKaieo {F-W.55 and Rattiram (F;W.6). Dh6hiram,,thje loclger of'{&4:fiist!l ,,ij^|i|| irffiM-m.ationi repdrt diea during •Hie pendesacy ofthe trial and he| iaot be examiaed. The Court Belawirelyiag upon tfae evidence ofPlW.igjj KQopei, ! corroboratEd inedical evidence, eoavictjed i]:|ftie accused/appellant and sentenced him as aarra.ted above.

6. ; Leamed Senior counsel appearmg ibr the appdlant cciiit^ied^t that me evideace of P.W.2 Koope is uot reUable aad Uie eorwictis}a]isy| based on the sole tesumouy ofP.W.2 Koope which is aot sustaiaa()Uju:i5|! theleyes oflaw. It^is further contended that the'iQquestwi!t:E Sse^t^U3(l.||il|| seizure witnesses were not exanunecl. it is also coatenclecl Qlal oflehce would not fall under Section 302 IPC axid at the iriostitniil1 ^sMi ii:ilSfil undter Sectiou 304 tPC.

7. Shri Bliatia,' learaed couai^^feE.tfiE^Sfate,! oal;the5iQl$ljeE?!Ka^ sup^iorted the judgmeilt of the^;tEi^^cQuiW;,aiicl:|coiu|erideB:i;tHat|^ : i'.v w'f il'.i evideace of Pw-2 Kdope is reliable aml.tthere is no iinfirmity at all. ||1|is ! l:li! ,<t. .|iS ''^'^^ii^^:^isii^^s^ss ,!:;' j'^^i; :/:'^'l^w^^:fK ^;^l^^:'ff^SII^®;BJIl3l1l f»t Slil:n I IJjBTttj^goom^Hiiietii &effi. 'tbe eviaenGe'.®fP.W.'2: Koo'p£si^isi<3l3@i|t|<®:CTKgl! ';:;:l':^;13:31: 13i ll!l'l!lliBUBiIJB :{:: •'; '• • liiIS':''':BB1i1"^ ^S;SI?::K::;~'^ :''': :.^^^''^!^i::^^^^'::S11^^0^^ ISiBiei!l'iBiie£AllEviderice.':';So:tar asi^f&e' ofeace :is:;-:e0iieiiliMIBHIBBSi !'::: ':; '1 '' ' '^ 'Wy: mSf iiW ^ltlil •I ||Bouit8e^&r:fitfl.eSState coirtended Uiat: the :marmer •is''vW3W!S U :Nii^;alMBE'!IIS BB I Bknvs liaye been given on .fhe vital parts of fhe body.;oSj8i||j||8e|^ i:Ni[iyi-t'.!!li i&S goes to shcw tfaat fhe accused interuled to cau.se deafb.aadiSt&fioiKiBiggl iauicted the injuries atid fhe case is the one which falls imder:Seci p;,j||||; 302 IPC. • . • •:l;W:ii3:s5^ 8, Perused the record. We have gorte through the eviden<3^i|||ll|. minutely. PW-2 Koope is the lady iawhose house the accused as vrell ||l!Ji as fhe deceased were takiag liquor. In herevidence, she sfated^ fhat on ; tne date ot uiciclent, wnen ner fiusbaud. nacl'gone to Uie t(A-est tor ^ cutting bamboo, at tliat tune both the accused aad the deceased came aud consuinecl one and. aalt botue ot liquor m. &er nouse. It is at ttus i inonient the accused stated to t&e deceased tliat you are insistiiig tbr aiore liquor andhe assaulted bytailgiaiyrtil he died. The deceased received injuries on his head. She furtber stated tbat fhreejtangia Dlows were grven. to fhe deceased. She fhen nanated the iacident to i Motli aad other viua^ers. Sae also narrated. ttte uicldent to fne iarofuer: | ]i .1 1 ]:ti jr! | j | ;1 ®1 1 and other relatives of deceased, wtio caiae on the spot the saw the }1 deceased. She also narrated the iacident to the Sarpaach pf thei iViUage aitd^ fhe police. Tfais witness has beeii ci-oss-exauiiaed. 11- .: IntBeicross-i •' •'' j '• ,; 1 i UiehousesaTelatthedistanceoflO-15 feet. examiaatiou, F'.w.2 Koope stated fhat she is tiaviag two h6uses| Both- I | .l:! She further stElted she' 11 -: \\' 1:1 •/ She asked1 filoia fthe \\\ 1 .•'.•! ! 111 \_\ ! accused wfay be is beatixi.g t&e deceased. Sne also sfated fhaitipoUce had seen the :accused beatmg the deceased. ! 1:. .|:|;: S . : • i had not iDquired Iroin her. She has aot inadc fhe report fo fhejpolice statioa. She stated fhat SuJsku is lesidiag ia palod and Qihesku^ in T'ugad. She further stated that at the time of iuciden.t, she Ii^d not J. :.l :- \— \ 11 i::N ! 1 i: BB ; 411 Igifi a ^ taken any tK)uor. She also stated that when fhe deceased aiut the accused caiae to her house, they were empty handed. P.W.3 MetU in her statemeot has stated ttiat p.W.2 Koope came belbre her and fold tliat Siudni is runruuig away after assaultuig the deceased;t>y taagia, P.W.4 D.S. Deaari is fhe Suh Inspector, who fecorded, jthe .first iiiabrmation report. P.W.5 Sukdeo is ffie seizure witness a&d P.W.6 e RattiratB is the Patwari who prepared the spot map aud fhe paacJ3Laaiaa<':,:.t..,::/':',..: .; .::; '::•.,-•.•.•:.. ^. ' . :'' : : ::, ^\ ;:

9. P.W.l Dr. Shashikaia, who coaducted ftie posfmcaliE^ examined. .iil Jier statBiiient, ahe narrated u^ Hijuries fbundi on the . .' body ofthe deceased. Ex.P/1 is fhe pQSttaorteni report ot'tlie aeeeased . • 1 ' : :' J ^ Chherku, wlucihreadsasiinder; : ^ j "Indsed wound. present ouer right siile of ', 3cfi' offt'Qniul fiff^ihffod G^'^Ti^h^ ^ebtf^^^^^^ bone in fhe size c^3° x l.S' aj^ed im/^^^a^ sha.rp object. Wghl ear was Jacerated. Coniusipn over rigfw rmjTuSbuiar region in ihe SKe t^' 3° x 2s vfffhlsft ofmwtcUble nghl side ' causedby wuj/liardcimlbluntobject.' The cause of death. was sJiowiK^fo be tlre aiyuries to vital organ.aaSl iiie. ^ tmieofdeafhwaswithia48-72.Jaoura.-^ , i U

10. If, !In Iias examinatioii uiider Secfion 3.13 Cr-RG., the accuseti.^iued^ everythiag; eyerilins gbing to tJie Mo&seiof K^pe {P.W^. Hei;ti<:|ivtever | admitted hisiowttaniest. .. ;' i^"y . ^ ; , l .

11.1 The repomvas lc^geQi;^iui:t&e ex^Maaation ,Mas tae^^ delay.as tBe; PaiKtiayat was.^oinreneff.tFy reporfeffl, died dunag -the peaaeacgt of:(hKltriM aad ftxe relE)Qrt|3:iasi^^eH .proved^y D.M. Ddian'(R,W^.^::^:|^|.^i^-':.^ W:.^ 't ;1:! V \

12. IQ tb.e uistant case,we tound t&at ftte evidence ot F.W.2 Koope is sucli oa wlucn tne impticit retiaace caa be placed. S.he is the natural witaess aad witaessed Uie incident. She does not have aav iU wiu nor anyfbiag has been suggested. The conviction can be based dn Uer sole testtmony, however, it requires serutiny. TUe leamed trial Judge has dealt wifh her evidence iniautelv. We have also scrutinized her evidence and fotind that there is ao infinnity ia her evidence. T'he Q maaner in which the offence has been conunitted shows fhat fhe uitention is absolutely clear.

13. We ai-e of tne considered opinion that fhe findiag, conviction aad seutence passed by the trial court do not suffer from auy juufirmily which may call for any iaterference by this Court in its appeuate junsaicuon.

14. Accordiagly, the appealfails aud is dismissed. Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge \